Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1943

Vol. 91 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs (Resumed).

Minister for External Affairs (The Taoiseach)

The line, I think, on which the debate on this Estimates was running was that it was our duty to look ahead, to try to anticipate the conditions that will exist when this war comes to an end and to make what preparations we could so that when peace came we would be in the best possible position to meet it. That was an important matter to discuss. I had already indicated that it was extremely difficult at this stage to see precisely what would be the conditions that would obtain when the war came to an end. We had seen published a number of statements relating to the policies of the different sets of belligerents, and so far as it was possible to get these we had properly to interpret them. It was quite clear, at any rate, that one set suggested that they intended, when the war ended, that there was to be an organisation designed to secure an end to war. I have pointed out that the position of this country had been clear in that regard. It was not something that we were saying just now. It was something that had been indicated as the national attitude as far back as 1919 and 1920. We then indicated our readiness to enter into any organisation of States designed to maintain the rights of nations and to secure peace, such an association being based on the idea of the sovereign equality and rights of nations, large and small.

Deputy Dillon, however, when it came to his turn to speak, gave the whole discussion something of a twist. I have read his speech in the proof form, and I have to confess that read-it calmly I had the same difficulty in getting a clear idea of what he was after as I had when I was listening to him speaking. The best I could make of it was this—that as a result of our neutrality there was likely to be an estrangement between this country and some of the countries with whom we have been friends in the past, that it was desirable to seek the earliest possible opportunity to make it clear, particularly to the people of the United States, that we sympathised with them, that our attitude was due to our own particular set of circumstances, that we would have desired to help them, but the conditions in which we found ourselves were such that we could not gratify those desires. I looked anxiously to see what methods he proposed for the doing of that. He said that it was too late now to take such steps as he had indicated, that it would look very much like getting on the band wagon. Still, he spoke about Portugal, although Portugal's position and our position are altogether different. He mentioned the help which, as he said, was given immediately by Portugal. He noted, of course, that our diplomatic protests with regard to bombing incidents were mild. He knows everything that took place before Portugal decided to give such help.

He did not indicate exactly what we were to do. He did on one occasion advocate here that we should give our ports and so on to the United States, and take whatever the consequences might be, in other words, get into the war. As we all know he stated that in this House, and did not get very much support here. He had a great opportunity of putting it to the test in Monaghan during the election, but he took very good care when he spoke in Monaghan not to suggest what he wanted us to do, to get into the war. He took good care on that occasion to point out that it was only a foolish person would bring upon the people the horrors of war. Some of the previous speakers here had been talking about propaganda.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Taoiseach quoting what I said?

The Taoiseach

I will quote for the Deputy if he thinks that my summary of his speech is unfair to him. I will quote a sentence from the Irish Independent of May 31st, 1943, page 3, column 6. According to the report when speaking at Donaghmoyne, Mr. Dillon said:

"They were told that if they voted for him they would be in the war, but no one was so foolish as to bring upon himself all the horrors of war."

Mr. Dillon

Will the Taoiseach allow me to intervene to say that I wrote to the newspaper pointing out that these words were not spoken by me?

The Taoiseach

I was not aware of that. If that is so I take it back.

Mr. Dillon

I did make a speech on neutrality which appeared in the newspapers during the election campaign. What I did say was that nobody wants war, but that there were worse things than war. That will be found in the Irish Press, the Irish Independent and the Irish Times.

The Taoiseach

What did the Deputy mean? Did he mean that this country was to go into the war? He said that the people did not want the horrors of war. These are carefully chosen words to deceive the electorate, in other words, saying: "I do not want war. If you vote for me you are not voting for this country going into war."

Mr. Dillon

Read the speeches I made.

The Taoiseach

I do not want in the slightest to misrepresent the Deputy, but I say that if a Deputy comes here and expresses certain views everybody who knew the position at the time must have realised that accepting those views meant the giving up of neutrality and, in fact, entering the war. If he went to Monaghan he could have said to the people there: "I think the whole national policy is wrong, all are out of step but me; elect me and show by that fact that you stand for a policy which I maintain is the right one", but he did not do that. I have another report of a speech from the Irish Times headed

"Mr. Dillon does not want war." Denying emphatically the allegation that he wanted war, Mr. Dillon, at Castleblayney, said:—

"No one could want war—one of mankind's greatest afflictions."

Nobody wants war, not even those going into it. Not even those inviting it! They did not want the horrors of war. Deputy Dillon and the rest of us might not want the horrors of war, but he wants us to make war.

Mr. Dillon

You do not want Purgatory, but you will probably go into it.

The Taoiseach

I hope I will get that far. According to the Irish Times the Deputy said that he had been accused of saying that he wanted to send the young men of Monaghan to die on foreign battlefields. When he spoke at Monaghan the Deputy stated that that was a lie. Although the Deputy was going to enter into the war in association with the other nations that were going in, he was going to claim the right of the Irish people to stay at home, while other people abroad would do the fighting for them. Of course that was in Monaghan when he was talking to the people there.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. Will the Taoiseach answer this——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

The Taoiseach

I will give the Deputy every help.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not a fact that, when speaking on neutrality here on the first occasion, I said that my attitude was to give facilities to the United Nations, and if that brought war upon us from Germany, we would face it, by helping them to the limit of our resources, but that it precluded sending Irish troops abroad, as we had neither the means nor the materials? Did I not say that the first time I spoke on this question?

The Taoiseach

I would not say that that is not correct by any means, but I should like to point out that it was foolish.

Mr. Dillon

At least, it was what I said.

The Taoiseach

Very well; if the Deputy says he said that, I am not denying it, but I do say that it is foolish, because when you go into war you are not playing a game. When you go into war, and when other people beside you are sacrificing their lives in other lands, you cannot stay at home and say: "Yes, you do the fighting abroad. We shall just do it here, if it comes here." The Deputy knows full well that you cannot do that sort of thing.

Mr. Dillon

The Australians are doing it.

The Taoiseach

The Australians are not doing it, and were not doing it.

Mr. Dillon

They are doing it now.

The Taoiseach

If the position of the Deputy is that it is the best way in which it can be done, the other associates agreeing that it be done in that particular way, that is all right, but you cannot in advance say: "We will go into the war, but we will go in on these conditions."

I have asked what Deputy Dillon really wants us to do. As I have said, there is this question of propaganda. Deputy Dillon knows full well that since we declared our neutrality, there has been a vicious campaign of propaganda against our people and against our country. He knows that full well, and he knows that the one thing above all others which he, as a good Irishman, should have striven to do was to try to kill that propaganda, and not to make balls for those who are opposed to us and attacking us abroad to fire. He knows full well that there has been a very bitter campaign carried on abroad against this country. He knows that it was suggested that German submarines were refuelling round our coasts, and that the crews of these submarines were being entertained in our remote villages. He knows that it was asserted that the personnel of the Axis Legations in this country were increased almost a hundred-fold. He knows it was said that there was a vast espionage system against Britain and against America set up in this country, and that wireless messages were going out from our mountains. He knows all that, and he is not content that these things should be falsely alleged against us, but must go out of his way to try to fasten upon this people and upon us one of the most despicable of charges—the charge of ingratitude.

Mr. Dillon

Oh!

The Taoiseach

Yes, it is despicable. Ingratitude is mean in a man and meaner still in a nation. Why should the Deputy go out of his way to try to fasten such a charge upon us? He pretends to quote from a message which I sent to the people of America. I remember the occasion on which I sent it; I remember scribbling it on a piece of paper that was at hand down deep in the bow of the forecastle of the old Celtic as she was ready to leave New York Harbour. It was written by me with a full heart at the time.

Mr. Dillon

And admirably written.

The Taoiseach

It was honestly written, and the Deputy at least might have given the words of a message like that and not added his own construction to them, not given his own parsing of them.

Mr. Dillon

I tried to give them and the Chair would not allow me.

The Taoiseach

If he proposed to give it, he might have given the portion which related to it as a whole, because there were two parts to the message and one part he took good care not to mention.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. Is it not true, Sir, that you ruled that the message was not to be read in extenso and that, if I sent for it, you would not have permitted me to read it? Is that not correct?

An Ceann Comhairle

When the Deputy has sat down, the Chair may answer. According to established precedent, statements made by Ministers before they assumed office may not be introduced into debate. Deputy Dillon introduced such a matter and it was ruled out. Twice subsequently he made passing references to it, but was not allowed to read the original message.

Mr. Dillon

That discharges me.

An Ceann Comhairle

However, if, despite the wishes of the Chair, such matters are introduced by Deputies, some reply must be permitted.

Mr. Dillon

I have no objection to the Taoiseach reading it and I do not want to raise a point of order. All I wanted was to discharge myself from the suggestion that I had refused to read the message.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did prevent the Deputy from so doing.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy said it was not the first time he had raised it and he also had given his own additions and constructions to it. He spoke of this message as if it were a treaty. Treaties at least ought to be construed on their texts and their spirit, but again he construed it, and wants to construe it, not as most people try to construe treaties, in the spirit in which they were given and the intention in which they were made, and to the benefit of their own people, if there is a doubt. I do not think it is an unfair line to take that people should construe them in their spirit, their literal meaning, and, if there is a doubt, I do not see why they should construe them against their country, unless for some higher purposes which may serve the interest of their country. In order that there may be no misunderstanding about it, I propose, if I am permitted, to read the latter portion of this message. It consists of three paragraphs. The first two are short and I shall omit them. The final paragraph reads:

"I came to you on a holy mission, a mission of freedom"

—I was addressing the people of the United States as I was leaving—

"I return to my people who sent me, not indeed, as I had dreamed it, with the mission accomplished, but, withal, with a message that will cheer in the dark days that have come upon them and that will inspire the acceptance of such sacrifices as must yet be made. So farewell— young, mighty, fortunate land. No wish that I can express can measure the depth of my esteem for you, or my desire for your welfare and your glory. And farewell, the many dear friends I have made and the tens of thousands, who for the reason that I was the representative of a noble nation and a storied, appealing cause, gave me honours they denied to princes—you will not need the assurance that Ireland will not forget and that Ireland will not be ungrateful."

I say here to-day that Ireland has not forgotten the generosity of the American people and that Ireland is not ungrateful. That is truth. It is true of me personally. Like other members of the House and other people throughout the country, I have closer personal connections with the United States of America than I have with any other country but this. That is true probably of a large number of our people. We have not forgotten the assistance we got from the United States, and we are not ungrateful, but is the position which Deputy Dillon takes up that we have forgotten and that we are ungrateful unless we pay that debt in the blood of our people? Is that the sort of repayment that the people of America were entitled naturally to expect from that message? Is it fair that Deputy Dillon should go and interpret that message so as to get that meaning out of it? I say it is not. It was neither intended by me—because I did not foresee situations like this—nor was it expected by the people of the United States.

I came from the people of the United States and I want you to remember the circumstances. I went over to the United States for two or three main purposes. But the principal purpose for which I went was to secure recognition of the Parliament and the State which had been declared here as a result of a general election, declared here by the representatives of the Irish people. People would naturally say: "How did he expect that the United States Government was going to give recognition to a State so declared? Were they going to do something which was going to give offence to Britain, their associate in the war?" Would one not say that was a very foolish mission, indeed, a very hopeless mission from the start, to go over to the United States and to ask the Government of the United States to recognise a Government that was set up here as the result of the votes of the majority of the Irish people, by a majority of the representatives of the Irish people; to recognise the Republic which was declared here by the Irish people; that it was foolish to expect that; that, so long as Britain did not recognise it, America was not going to do such a foolish thing as to offend Britain by giving such recognition? Yes, indeed, it would have been, in ordinary circumstances, a rather hopeless mission.

What inspired it? Why was it undertaken at all? Well, those of us who lived through the last war and knew what was said during the last war understand it. But there are young people—perhaps Deputy Dillon may be one of them—who may have forgotten about those times, and may, like others, be wondering how it was that we undertook such a mission at all. I will try to bring back some of the circumstances of those times to you by telling you what were the declarations that were made at that time. The United States of America entered the war some time in April, 1917. Long before that, however, President Wilson had given utterance to his views on world affairs, and he had set out the principles which he believed would have to be accepted as basic if there was to be international peace. On May 27th, 1916, speaking at Washington to the League to Enforce Peace, he set down three fundamental principles:—

"First, that every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live.

Second, that the small States of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that great and powerful nations expect and insist upon.

Third, that the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin in agression and disregard of the rights of peoples and nations."

Within a few months of making that statement, these principles were, word for word, being incorporated in the platform of the Democratic Party. They were made the basis on which the election was held as the public policy of the United States, and the democratic President was elected on that basis.

Before he actually took office a second time, President Wilson, on January 22nd, 1917, still before America was in the war, addressing the Senate on the conditions of peace, stated:

"The equality of nations upon which peace must be founded, if it is to last, must be an equality of rights; the guarantees exchanged must neither recognise nor imply a difference between big nations and small; between those that are powerful and those that are weak....

No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognise and accept the principle that Governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property....

That no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful."

These principles of the right of nations to choose their own sovereignty, of the equality of rights between great nations and small, were repeated in speech after speech that the President of the United States at that time delivered and, when America was entering the war in April, 1917, these principles were further elaborated. On May 26th, 1917, in a cablegram to Russia he said:

"Phrases will not accomplish the result. Effective readjustments will, and whatever readjustments are necessary must be made."

On August 27th, 1917, in a message to His Holiness the Pope, he put the recognition of the rights of people as the foundation stone of peace, and he stated:

"The American people believe that peace should rest upon the rights of people, not the rights of Governments—the rights of peoples, great or small, weak or powerful— their equal right to security and freedom and self-government."

On December 4th, 1917, in his address to Congress he said that the justice for which they were fighting would be applied impartially:—

"It will be full impartial justice— justice done at every point and to every nation that the final settlement must affect, our enemies as well as our friends."

On May 26th, 1917, he defined America's war aims in one sentence, in his cabled message to Russia. Speaking of America, he said:

"She is fighting for no advantage or selfish object of her own, but for the liberation of people everywhere from the aggressions of autocratic force."

As the war continued, he emphasised all these principles time and time again, On September 1st, 1918, in a public message to American Labour, he said of the American soldiers that they went as crusaders:—

"They are giving their lives that ... men everywhere be free as they (themselves) insist upon being free ..."

The Armistice, as you know, was signed on November 11th, 1918. The President came to Europe for the Peace Conference. Representatives of this nation sent messages asking that their claims should be heard, but they would not be heard. Going back to America on February 24th, 1919, at Boston, on his return from Paris, he said the world looked to America as to no other belligerent, because America acted her ideas:—

"When they — the European nations—saw that America not only held the ideals, but acted the ideals, they were converted to America and became firm partisans of these ideals ...We set this nation up to make men free ... and now we will make men free."

On March 4th, 1919, at New York, he spoke again on his way to the Peace Conference, and struck a new note of hope for oppressed peoples. Referring to the States that had been oppressed, he said:—

"Europe is a bit sick at heart at this moment, because it sees that statesmen have had no vision. Those who suffer see ... The nations that have long been under the heel ..."

—there are some omissions there; it is a long sentence, but the sense is—

"have called out to the world, generation after generation, for justice, liberation and succour, and no Cabinet in the world has heard them. Private organisations, philanthropic men and women, have poured out their treasure in order to relieve their sufferings, but no nation has said to the nations responsible: ‘You must stop; this thing is intolerable and we will not permit it.'"

Need I say to those who are here what hope these words inspired in our people? If anybody wonders why we could go to the United States of America on the mission that we went on, I ask him to read these words, if they are printed, or to take them away in his memory from what I have said. President Wilson went on to reassert the determination of the United States of America to bring freedom to all peoples:—

"The United States, when it became necessary, would go anywhere where the rights of mankind were threatened."

I have given a rather long list. I could have multiplied that list and given a list at least five times as long, every statement bearing out the position which was taken up by the President of the United States of America. But that was not all. Those Deputies over the half century will remember fairly well the conditions in the last war. They will remember the appeals that were made to our people during that war. They will remember that the statements that were made by the President of the United States of America were repeated, in other forms, by the statesmen of Britain and of other countries. I have here samples of the posters that were issued during that war, asking our young people to come in and serve. They are too long to quote in full. I will give just a sentence or two at the beginning and, perhaps, one or two at the end. The first one here is:—

"Ireland and America. The Star-Spangled Banner is unfurled for the fight. There is not the slightest ambiguity about the language of President Wilson."

I think those who have been listening to the extracts which I have read will admit that that sentence was justified. And it ends:—

"Will Ireland fight for this freedom?"

Perhaps, to make the argument clear, I should read it in entirety:—

"The Star-Spangled Banner is unfurled for the fight. There is not the slightest ambiguity about the language of President Wilson:—

‘Territory, sovereignty, or political relationship—any or all of these—to be settled upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned.'

The President also said:—

"We are concerting with our Allies to make not only the liberties of America secure, but the liberties of every other people as well.'

"No man can read these words without applying them to Ireland as well as to Belgium, Poland, the Jugo-Slavs and the Ukraine. The Allies— and America clearly states this—cannot undertake to free the peoples under Germany and Austria and leave other peoples under a system of government which they resent. America, speaking through its President, declares that ‘the liberties of every other people' are as valued and are to be made secure, aye, as the liberties of America. Will Ireland fight for this freedom? America will see her rights are secured."

Mr. Dillon

Does the Taoiseach say from where he is quoting?

The Taoiseach

This is a poster which was issued with the authority, apparently, of the British War Office. It is numbered, 417, 5626. 3. 20,000, Falconer, G. 5. There is a second one—"Ireland and the Peace Conference":—

"The Allies declare in specific terms that they are out to give freedom to small nationalities. The Central Powers, Germany and Austria, refuse to declare any such thing, and their treatment of Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro and Roumania in the present war is enough to show their principles and method. But they go further and ask the Allies to agree to close out all nations not in the enjoyment of freedom prior to the war. The Allies refuse. Is it not in the interest of Ireland then to test the public declarations of the Allies and aid them in the fight they are waging for Small Nationalities? They cannot then in the face of Europe give freedom to all the Small Nations and leave Ireland out."

Mr. Dillon

Is that another war poster?

The Taoiseach

Yes. Well, I think I have shown to the members of the House why we had the temerity to go to the United States of America at that time and to ask that a small nation, which had proved most conclusively what it required, and that had set up a Republic based upon its people's will, should receive recognition. But, just as President Wilson had said, Cabinets had not listened before, and so the American Government did not feel that it could do this so far as we were concerned, and, accordingly, our claim for recognition was not accepted. The principal part of my mission, therefore, which was to secure recognition of the Republic, had not been successful, the United States Government feeling, I suppose, that President Wilson, when he came to Europe, had a difficult task to face. He failed, I believe, in things that he wished to do himself because he found the conditions in Europe were too much for him, although I do believe that when he made those statements he meant them.

When it came, however, to the point when he had to choose, as the head of his Government, between the friendship with his Allies which he thought might possibly be involved—although, really, that should not have been the case, because Britain and British statesmen, as I have pointed out, had already committed themselves to these principles almost as completely as had the President himself. Therefore, he might very well have been able to say to the British Government at that time: "See what I have said; see the principles for which I have entered into the war—which principles you yourselves have accepted—and why should you now be offended by these principles because I give recognition to them myself, and because I have recognised a nation which, if ever a nation could have done so, has proved in a most conclusive manner that it was in a position to govern itself?" As I have pointed out, if there were not other interests involved, and if the conditions of the time had not been too much for him, I believe that that would have been the attitude of President Wilson, but, for its own reasons, the Government of the United States of America did not do this.

As I have said, we would probably not have had the temerity to seek for these things were it not for these representations that had been made, but I understood the difficulties with which President Wilson was confronted. I understood that, as far as the President of the United States was concerned, his duty was to be concerned with the interests of his own people ultimately, and, if on those grounds, he came to a decision not to give us recognition, then I knew enough about world affairs to take that as it was. But the attitude of the American people, who had listened to and supported these statements, was quite different. The attitude of the people of the United States everywhere was one of friendliness towards us. The State Legislatures passed resolutions asking the American Government to give us recognition. The House of Representatives, as well as the Senate of the United States passed resolutions asking that Ireland's delegates be received and heard at the Peace Conference. Everything that the people of the United States could do, I might say, outside of actually getting their Government, or forcing their Government, to give us recognition, they had done.

We went to the Presidential Convention in Chicago—the Republican Convention. We asked those Americans who were friendly to our cause to put down as a part of their political programme that if the candidate which their Party was putting forward were elected President, they would give that recognition to our nation which seemed to have been indicated clearly in President Wilson's statements. I remember it well. We had got resolutions, as I have said, in our favour, from State Legislatures; municipalities had supported us; the Houses of Congress had supported us, and there was no use in having simply a resolution of sympathy at that stage. The only thing that was going to be of any real value to us at that stage was a definite pledge of recognition. However, there were Americans who, although friendly to Ireland, thought otherwise, and wanted to have something like an expression of sympathy inserted. Now, it seemed to me that the time for that had gone, and that the only thing that was going to be of value to us was a definite, formal pledge by the Party that they were prepared to give recognition to us.

I have indicated at the start that, in 1916, the Democratic Party had adopted the principles which we asked should be applied to us, and I felt certain that if the Republican Convention had put on its programme the recognition of the Republic that had been set up here by the vote of the Irish people, the Democratic Convention would do the same, if we requested them to do so, and I felt sure that such a resolution, if it had been pressed probably, would have been passed by both conventions. As I have pointed out, I had gone everywhere as the representative of our people, and had got recognition everywhere as the representative of our people. Deputy Dillon has said—and possibly rightly—that probably nobody could claim ever to have got wider recognition from our own people, in the sense of having authority from our own people to speak in their name, than I had at that particular time, nor had anybody received a greater reception by the people of the United States of America than I received, at that time, as the representative of our own people.

We had floated a loan. They had subscribed generously to that loan. Although I had not, when I was leaving, got the recognition which was the principal purpose of my mission, I had got very much for our people for which I feel we were bound to be grateful. Although I have read these things which President Wilson stated as indicating the purpose of our mission to the United States, I do not want that to take away from the gratitude which I think our people owe to the people of the United States for the position we have reached up to this time. It has been a continuing help. When I was over negotiating in 1938 I got that help also. I could not have got it formally and officially, but I did get it unofficially.

Why then does Deputy Dillon try to put us in the position of being ungrateful? Why use the word "ingratitude," to which the words "black,""base,""mean" and "despicable" are the only adjectives that can be applied? Why does he want to fasten that on our people, when it is not true? I do not think that the United States acted unfairly by us because we did not get that recognition, though I say because I know enough about the world, that that would have been one of the outstanding things in history if it were done. It was not done. Am I going to say that the United States let us down, that we were badly treated and so on? Am I going to try to work up the people of this country so that they might feel bitter towards the people of the United States because that was not done? I certainly am not because the truth is, if it were done, it would be an outstanding thing in history. It was not done, and what we are grateful for are the things that were done. Deputy Dillon referred to something I said in Cork when America entered the war.

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach said something, I think, in O'Connell Street.

The Taoiseach

I do not think so.

Mr. Dillon

At an L.D.F. meeting in O'Connell Street.

The Taoiseach

It is possible but I shall give you what I said in Cork after the United States entered the war. This is an extract from my speech in Cork:—

"Since this terrible war began our sympathies have gone out to all the suffering peoples who have been dragged into it. Further hundreds of millions have become involved since I spoke at Limerick a fortnight ago. Its extension to the United States of America brings a source of anxiety and sorrow to every part of this land. There is scarcely a family here which has not a member or near relative in that country. In addition to the ties of blood, there has been between our two nations a long association of friendship and regard continuing uninterruptedly from America's own struggle for independence down to our own. The part that American friendship played in helping us to win the freedom that we enjoy in this part of Ireland has been gratefully recognised and acknowledged by our people."

Deputy Dillon says that it is all black ingratitude as far as we are concerned. The statement went on:—

"It would be unnatural then if we did not sympathise in a special manner with the people of the United States, and if we did not feel with them in all the anxieties and trials which this war must bring upon them. For this reason, strangers who do not understand our conditions have begun to ask how America's entry into the war will affect our State policy here. We answered that question in advance. The policy of the State remains unchanged. We can only be a friendly neutral. From the moment this war began there was for this State only one policy possible— neutrality. Our circumstances, our history, the incompleteness of our national freedom through the partition of our country made any other policy impracticable. Any other policy would have divided our people and for a divided nation to fling itself into this war would be to commit suicide. Of necessity, we adopted the policy of neutrality, but we have been under no illusions about it. We have been fully alive to the difficulties and dangers which it brought. We are fully aware that, in a world at war, each set of belligerents are ever ready to regard those who are not with them as against them, but the course we have followed is a just course. God has been pleased to save us during the years of war that have already passed. We pray that He may be pleased to save us to the end but we must do our part."

That statement was made in Cork. It set out clearly what were our special relations with the United States, but, of course, according to Deputy Dillon, we cannot be grateful unless we repay the debt in blood, even to the destruction of our people.

Then Deputy Dillon wants to come to the help of those who are attacking our country abroad. He knows perfectly well that one of the things that have been referred to, time and again in the foreign Press, has been my statement when the American troops entered into the North. I shall read that statement for the House; it is just as well it should be on record. Naturally, the moment that it became known that American troops were coming into the North I was asked questions by the Press, and in reply to the Press this statement was issued:—

"In reply to the Press, Mr. de Valera stated to-day that the Irish Government had not been consulted either by the British Government or the American Government with regard to the coming of the American troops to the Six Counties."

That was a definite statement of fact, a statement of fact which it was my duty to make known.

"Everyone knew, he said, that Ireland had 20 years ago been partitioned, and the Six Counties cut off from the rest of the country by an Act of the British Parliament, despite the expressed will of the Irish people. When the United States was entering the last war, President Wilson declared that America meant to fight for democracy and for the right of peoples to national self-determination. The Irish people took him at his word and, in the General Elections of December, 1918, by an overwhelming vote—more than three for to one against—declared for National Independence and for the establishment of a Republic. This decision was reaffirmed, after two years of conflict with Britain, in the General Elections of 1921, when the Partition candidates returned were again less than one-fourth of the total representation. Nevertheless, the British Government cut the nation in two and set up a separate Parliament for six of the 32 Counties. Those six counties formed no natural, historic or geographical entity. The area was chosen solely with a view to securing a majority within it for the anti-national minority. In one-half of the area, including the City of Derry and the whole territory adjoining the Boundary with the Twenty-Six Counties, a majority of the inhabitants are against Partition.

"To partition the territory of an ancient nation is one of the cruellest wrongs that can be committed against a people. The partition of Ireland is in essence not different from the former partition of Poland, nor are the evils that flow from it less in kind than those which Abraham Lincoln foresaw from the projected partition of the United States, when he determined to prevent it, even at the cost of fighting one of the bitterest civil wars in history.

"The people of Ireland have no feeling of hostility towards, and no desire to be brought in any way into conflict with the United States. For reasons which I referred to a few weeks ago, the contrary is the truth, but it is our duty to make it clearly understood that, no matter what troops occupy the Six Counties, the Irish people's claim for the union of the whole of the national territory and for supreme jurisdiction over it will remain unabated.

"Four years ago, the British Government and Parliament recognised fully the sovereignty of the Irish nation over that part of the national territory included in the Twenty-Six Counties, and the bond has been honourably kept in that regard. But the maintenance of the partition of Ireland is as indefensible as aggressions against small nations elsewhere which it is the avowed purpose of Great Britain and the United States in this war to bring to an end."

What does Deputy Dillon object to in that statement? The first part was a statement of fact which it was my duty to make public; the rest of it was a clear indication that that portion of the territory—no matter what might be the international conventions with regard to it—was regarded, as a matter of right, as part of the national territory of this country; and that, therefore, when the United States' troops were coming there, it was our duty to make clear our position in regard to it. Again I ask, what offensive thing have I said to anybody there? Was I, the responsible Minister for External Affairs, to let that happen and make no statement whatever about it?

The Deputy asks why I went to the Press. I went to the Press so that public opinion might be informed. He does not know what took place, what private dispatches had passed with regard to it; he does not know what the position was, but he wants to accuse me of going out of my way to create bad feeling between the United States and ourselves. I did not want to do that, and he knows perfectly well I did not want to do it. If there was one man in this country who has no interest in doing that, I am that person. Although I went there as the representative of our people, and although I am not such a fool as to think that any of the things done there were done for me personally, one would have to be a stone to go through America and see what I saw, from 1919 to 1921, and not be grateful to the people of the United States. But I have a duty to perform as Minister, and I am going to perform that duty, and it was in performance of it that I made that statement.

Deputy Dillon goes on in his line of propaganda:—"Oh, you did not behave that way when Belfast was attacked." In other places, he says:—"Actions speak louder than words." But actions in the case of Belfast do not speak at all, apparently—it was words that were wanted then. If we did what Deputy Dillon has asked us on more than one occasion to do, to hand over a portion of our territory to be used by Britain and the United States to make war on Germany, if we did hand over the port at Cóbh and if it were being used as a base to attack Germany, on what basis could I protest if Germany bombed it? I might protest against the bombing. I think, and always thought, that the bombing of men, women and children is inhuman, that it is the same as going back to the days when villages were wiped out by warring tribes; but I know that modern war has taken on that shape and that there is no use in talking against bombing as such. If we had handed over Cóbh and if Cork and Cóbh were bombed then, on what basis could I issue a protest to Germany? Would I not be told: "War is being made upon us from there. War is war, and from wherever we are being attacked, on that place we can hit back and shall hit back." If I had to make any protest with regard to Belfast, should I not have directed the protest first to those who involve in the war a large portion of the people there against their will? If, instead, I had protested to Germany, what answer would I get? The protest would be an idle one.

I remember that I was rung up in the middle of the night by the Fire Department and was told that an urgent message had come from Belfast asking for assistance. It was a very urgent message. I took a few minutes to consider its consequences and, within five minutes, I said: "Let all the strength that we can give, all the help that we can give, to put out those fires, be given to our people"; and it was given. I knew that that might have been regarded as a hostile act. People do not burn and destroy, when they are at war, for the fun of the thing; they want the destruction to take place. It was a very big decision for me to take, but fire is fire, and the decision, if taken at all, had to be taken then and there. I took the decision and I felt that the Government—with whom I got in touch as quickly as I could—the Parliament and the people would have stood behind that act.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

They were our people, and a more definite act of sympathy with our people could not have been made. I think there is nothing more mean in all this campaign than the suggestion of cowardice on our part. We are a small nation, we are quite aware that in modern wars the equipment and armaments required are far beyond the possibilities of a small nation; but when we adopted the policy of neutrality, none of us were foolish enough, I hope, to think it would be a simple, an easy or a safe policy. As a matter of fact, we knew perfectly well that, in adopting the policy of neutrality—though it was the wiser one—it might at some stage involve us in war. It is not enough to declare a policy of neutrality; you have to defend it and uphold it. The upholding of neutrality, if you are sincere about it, means that you will have to fight for your life against one side or the other —whichever attacks you. That was the position we were in and that is the position we are in to-day. Many people are talking to-day as if the danger were past. I have said time after time that the danger to this country will not be past until the last shot is fired. Anybody who advises the people to the contrary is giving them wrong and bad advice. If it should happen that the danger is past, we shall not bring the danger closer by being ready and prepared. We shall not lose anything by having been prepared and by remaining prepared to the end. We should commit an irreparable fault if we neglected to be prepared and, thinking the danger was past, were caught unprepared. The wise thing to do is for every one of us to remain at his post from now until the end of the war. It is hard to steel oneself to doing that when war gets distant but it is the duty of everybody who realises the dangers that lie in our situation to do so.

Neutrality is not a cowardly policy if you really mean to defend yourself if attacked. Other nations have not gone crusading until they were attacked. I saw a letter a short time ago written by an Irishman whose views on many matters are very different from mine. He participated in the last war to defend some of the things set out in the posters from which I was reading. He was an old Parnellite——

Mr. Dillon

Henry Harrison.

The Taoiseach

Yes. I shall read from the statement by Henry Harrison. It might be a line for Deputy Dillon to copy.

Mr. Dillon

God forbid that I should ever have to learn from him.

The Taoiseach

At least, Deputy Harrison——

Mr. Dillon

He is not a Deputy yet; he may be a Senator.

The Taoiseach

At least, he put on the uniform and went out and fought. Captain Harrison's letter was written in reply to Professor Commager, who had been lecturing in Cambridge and who went over to the United States and wrote a long article trying to show the American people that, somehow, Ireland had lost its moral sense. Those were not his exact words, but that was the general effect of his article. Here we have a reply from an Irishman who fought in the British Forces, who got, if I mistake not, the Military Cross, who believes in what Deputy Dillon, apparently, believes— close association between Ireland and Britain and Ireland and America—who has the same views as to the outcome of the war that Deputy Dillon has. But he does not think, as Deputy Dillon does, that to help on those views he must attack this country. He sets out to defend this country. He wrote to the New York Times. Whether his letter was published in that paper or not, I do not know. I saw it in another paper. In his letter he says to Professor Commager:—

"You insist, again and again, that Ireland has erred in the sphere of morals. You proclaim that the Irish people have ‘missed out somehow on the greatest moral issue of modern history', and that her continued neutrality shows this. But see how your whole picture is awry. You fail to advert to the indisputable fact that whilst, of the four principal Allied belligerents, two relinquished neutrality to enter the war, neither of them did so until they had been assailed by the Axis with fire and sword. Presumably, when Britain and France declared war upon the Axis in September, 1939, ‘the greatest moral issue in modern history' came into being but Russia continued to ‘miss out' on it until Hitler invaded her territory in June, 1941, and America herself ‘missed out on the greatest moral issue of modern history' for 2¼ years until December, 1941, when Japan struck her the assassin blow at Pearl Harbour. These two great leviathan Powers were no voluntary crusaders leaping into the area in unreflecting and disinterested enthusiasm for high moral principle. They had made no move when others were wantonly attacked. They remained neutral when Denmark and Norway, Holland and Belgium, Jugoslavia and Greece were, in turn, ravaged and enslaved. They fought because they had to, because they had no choice left, because they were attacked, because, being attacked, they needs must fight or submit to a conqueror's yoke. And little Ireland was not attacked. That is the difference. That is the sole difference. For there is nothing more certain than that Ireland also would have fought back if she had been attacked. She would have fought with such arms as she could get and as best she might, successfully or not. Her thousand years of resistance to invasion are sufficient guarantee of that. In drawing your attention to these indisputable facts, I do not asperse the conduct of either Russia or America, as you must necessarily do if you attempt to justify your censure upon Ireland. I am fully aware—as you, apparently, are not— that national policies are the resultant of many complex motives and that considerations of material resources, of timing, of attendant circumstances, of long-term strategy, of national interests, of plain prudence and the like are all involved in the final decisions not less than regard for high moral principle. I merely cite these facts to show that your censure on Ireland is ill-considered and ill-founded."

There we have an Irishman defending the attitude we have taken up. Deputy Dillon said that he did not mind what Captain Harrison said and did not want to follow him. I ask Deputy Dillon what portion of that statement he objects to. Let him tell us.

Mr. Briscoe

There is no answer.

Mr. Dillon

If the Deputy wants me to get up and make a speech in the middle of the Taoiseach's speech, I am prepared to do so.

The Taoiseach

I do not want that.

Mr. Dillon

Then there is no use in Deputies on the other side shouting.

Mr. Corry

You did not go out to fight; you got married.

Mr. Briscoe

Why does Deputy Dillon not put on the uniform?

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Briscoe should keep quiet.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dillon will have to keep quiet.

Mr. Dillon

Of all the men in this House the Deputy ought to have the least to say—running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

The Taoiseach

I think I have said most of the things that I wanted to say. We in this country have chosen our policy. We have chosen that policy with full recognition of the fact, as I said in Cork, that when people are at war they are apt to conclude that those who are not with them are against them. We have seen other wars, and I have known Ireland to be abused before—Ireland was abused in the last war. We knew that propaganda was going to be used against this country by those who were interested in defaming it, and we knew that that propaganda would continue having its effect, even when the war has ended. We knew what we were doing. We are not apologising for it, because we think we have done rightly and correctly. If it should happen that in the post-war period there will be an attempt made by any State to vent its anger upon us, we have got to face that, just as we have to face, at the present time, the possibilities of attack. We will face that, I hope, with the same courage that we faced the crises through which we have passed. We have passed through, not one, but a number of serious situations since the war began.

We shall face whatever comes, and I have not the slightest doubt that our people are not so foolish as to think that in times of stress there is any policy that any nation can choose which is not going to have reactions. What we have to do, as a people, is to rely on our right, to rely upon the goodness of our cause, to hope that the Almighty will be as favourable to us as He has been up to the present, and to do everything we can to deserve it, and, whatever the future brings, to accept it and to do our best to minimise any dangers that may be in it. But we are not going into the position that Deputy Dillon wants to put us into. He wants to put us into that position. He would have the whole Irish nation put into this position. He wants us to go on wishing that one side will win, to go on wishing and shouting about it.

If this nation were so foolish as to do what Deputy Dillon is saying, do you not think there would be somebody facing this nation, as there are people facing Deputy Dillon, who would say: "Very well, then; if you want all these things, why do you not take the steps that will enable these things to come about?" If you want these countries to win, if you shout about it, then your duty naturally will be to go and take part. That is the position. I have heard somebody talking about Deputy Dillon's speech the last day and the effect it had upon him. He said it looked to him that Deputy Dillon's speech seemed to indicate that he was all a wish-bone, that he had a wish-bone as big as an ostrich——

Mr. Dillon

That was a very good joke, at my expense, but not very relevant.

The Taoiseach

——but not the backbone of a tom-tit——

Mr. Dillon

That was still very good, but rather offensive.

The Taoiseach

Is that the position the Deputy wants this country put into?

Mr. Dillon

No.

The Taoiseach

Do we have to go out shouting that we want this or that? Let us keep the dignified position we are in—we are in a dignified and an honest position. We say we have the right, and we are going to maintain the right, to keep out of this war— that it is our duty to do it——

Mr. Dillon

Everyone agrees with that.

The Taoiseach

—and we are going to do that, no matter what comes our way. There is no question, and there will be no question, as long as this Government is here, to try to get up on the band-wagon. You can make perfectly sure of that. If we are not respected for what we are, then we will not ask respect for what we are not.

Question put and agreed to.