Running right through the speech which we have just heard from Deputy Dillon has been a gospel of surrender and defeatism. What is his suggestion for an army? It is that 100 units containing 100 men each should be trained as guerrillas and that they should fight just long enough for the British or Americans to come in, that they should put up a show and that the Americans or the British may fight our battles for us. The guerrilla tactics which he suggests are all right in their own place. These tactics have generally been used by an army which has been overcome to the extent that a large part of its country is occupied by a hostile force. We had experience of guerrilla tactics in this country during the period from 1916 to 1921, when we fought a campaign by this means against a force which occupied our country. During the last war, in France and in other countries which had been overrun, guerrilla tactics were adopted by patriotic bands. Running right through Deputy Dillon's speech this evening was not the policy of an independent country maintaining its independence, but the policy of a country surrendering its independence and putting up a show, just as a temporary measure, until its new conquerors arrived.
He tells us that Russia is the only country that may attack us. He speaks thus, bearing in mind the fact that portion of our own territory is occupied by the armed forces of another nation and that, during the last emergency, it was occupied by the armed forces of two other nations who, he suggests, here this evening will be our saviours in the event of another world conflict. We remember the dignified protest made by the present Taoiseach when the American forces landed in part of our national territory during the last war without the authority of our Government. That country did not think very much about our protest then, but occupied our national territory in spite of it. It is well known that there were periods of grave danger during the last war when it was possible that American forces might have crossed the Border and occupied the remainder of our country. Yet Deputy Dillon suggests that we must look to those nations for deliverance in the event of our being invaded by the Russians. Can we visualise the situation that would arise if the Russians started to land on our coasts or to land from planes in the sky? What would have happened to France, to Belgium and to those other countries that are in alliance with Britain and America, not to defend Europe on the Rhine, but, in the event of war, to go right into the heart of Russia? What would the situation be if the Russians were landing on our coasts or on our territory from the sea? Deputy Dillon's 100 units of 100 men each would be striving to keep them back and to hold on until the Americans and the British, then beaten out of Europe with their allies, came in by the back door to save us. The whole situation, in the event of another world war, is too appalling for that sort of nonsense to be tolerated in this House.
Whatever vulgar abuse Deputy Dillon may use against me does not, for one moment, affect me personally. I do not mind it. I have got so used to vulgar abuse over a number of years that the type I get from Deputy Dillon does not matter now. Running right through the Deputy's speech this evening was a criticism of the Defence Forces—a criticism of the Army General Staff, a criticism of the officers of the Army who have devoted their lives to building up the Army, and a criticism of everybody that has been connected with its building up. Personally, I am proud to have given a number of years of my life to the building up of the Army in this country. There are men in this House who devoted their lives, not only to the establishment of the State, but to the building up of the Army, and I feel that it is a contemptible thing that a person like Deputy Dillon should express criticism in this House, in the manner in which he has expressed it, of the Army. Having joined the Fine Gael Party recently, he dare not express openly in front of General MacEoin what he really thinks about the Army. However, when he talks about the Army play-acting in their battalions in Malahide with sprigs of trees in their caps, it is criticism of the Army in another way, and criticism which he hopes will escape General MacEoin's detection. He criticises the arms that have been brought in here. The preliminary arrangements for such purchases, it has been claimed, were made by Deputy Dillon's colleagues in the inter-Party Government—Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and Deputy MacEoin. They were looking for armaments here, there and everywhere. They said in this House, I do not know how true it is, that they made the prelimmary arrangements to send a mission to Sweden. The fact that that mission was successful has been criticised here by Deputy Dillon.
Deputy Dillon is old enough to have served his country in arms on a number of occasions. Deputy Dillon has never served it in arms and he has nothing but contempt for the people who have served it in arms. During the last war he wanted us to give up our policy of neutrality and to come in on the side of Britain against the Germans. Now he wants us to come in on the side of Britain and America, to become part of that partnership, so that if there is a third world war we will engage in it.
Deputies who have been in this House for many years have heard that famous speech about the Cominform from Deputy Dillon. It is almost a recitation with him now. Most people in the world to-day who are alive to the seriousness of another world war, to the danger to civilisation and to humanity itself, are endeavouring to see by what means war can be avoided or stopped. Not so Deputy Dillon. He wants us to give up our policy of neutrality, a policy which was carried through during the last war in spite of Deputy Dillon, and which I hope in the event of another world war, will be carried through by this country also in spite of Deputy Dillon.
If there is a third world war, even if we decide on a policy of neutrality as being the proper policy to adopt, and even if that policy of ours is respected by the belligerents, it will be very difficult to avoid the consequences of the war. If atom bombs are used, there is the possibility that atom bombs dropped on the western coast of England may affect us, even though we are neutral, and even though our neutrality is respected. It is a horrible prospect. It is horrible to think that men, women and children in Dublin may be destroyed by atom bombs dropped in Britain, and not intended to fall on us.
Statesmen everywhere should endeavour to see how war can be avoided rather than to adopt the line of Deputy Dillon that war is inevitable and that, if war comes, we must line up and must bear the brunt of atomic weapons.
The nonsensical suggestion to have 100 units of 100 men each can be seen in its proper perspective if one looks far enough forward. Deputy Dillon is not looking very far forward. He has suggested here this evening that there is no hope of this country defending itself. When physical force was suggested as a national policy by the Volunteers, prior to 1916, it was the idea of the old Parliamentary Party at that time that it was absurd. Logically, of course, it could be proved that this country could not with any measure of success engage in a war with Britain. Similarly, when we did achieve a measure of freedom, when we set up our own institutions and our own Army, we were told all the time by the know-alls, the Deputy Dillons of that time, that neutrality was impossible in another war. We proved that Deputy Dillon and those people with him on that were wrong just as we proved that the older Dillons were wrong, prior to 1916 and in subsequent years.
We can prove, too, that in the event of a third world war—which I hope will not eventuate—it would be possible to maintain a policy of neutrality. The world in the last 20 years has come to regard Ireland as a country that will keep clear of the warring camps. Switzerland is another country whose neutrality has been respected all the years. Many wars have passed Switzerland by. Switzerland's policy of neutrality has been accepted. If the world does engage in a third world war, I hope that we will be able to keep out of it so that when it is all over and when the world is a shambles, we will be able to do something to start it going again.
I notice that there is less talk of war in Britain now than there was some years back. Britain is beginning to realise her position if war should come. The people of every city in Europe, particularly those that have experienced the bloc-bombing of the last war, have some idea of what atomic bombing will be in the next war. Men of goodwill everywhere are endeavouring, or should be endeavouring, to see how war can be avoided and not on what side we will fight if war should come.
I understood that it was the policy of the Department of Defence, the policy of the Defence Council, in all the years to build up the forces of this country on the basis that they will defend the country against any invader, in other words that they will establish and maintain a policy of neutrality. To maintain a policy of neutrality requires just the same organisation of our manpower as a war policy would require. In fact it would be much easier, if our policy were war, to organise our Defence Forces than it is to organise our Defence Forces to maintain a policy of neutrality, because in maintaining a policy of neutrality every individual in the country who is able to fight must be organised for that purpose. We must make it clear to the belligerents on both sides that they just cannot walk in here and use this island as they would wish in their own interest. We must guarantee to both sets of belligerents that we shall maintain our neutrality and that we shall keep out not only one side but the other side as well.
If our policy is to be simply a policy of war, then we shall do as Deputy Dillon says—enter into the North Atlantic Pact and guarantee them one division. Probably they may not want even one division but we shall build up that division and contribute it to the joint forces of the nations organised under that particular Pact. That is what Deputy Dillon suggests. What he has suggested this evening is that we should base our defence policy on a pretence of fight, while our friends from the United States under the Stars and Stripes are landing to protect us. They did land to protect the South Koreans. That unfortunate country has been torn upside down by war for the last couple of years. If there is any civilian living in it now, I would be very much surprised. We see these horrible photographs of young children and old men blasted to bits with bombs. Is that the sort of thing we want? Do we want to invite any nation in here to protect us, so that we shall be a target for every conceivable type of modern weapon that the other side can drop on us or explode against us? I say that anyone who suggests that is suggesting a traitorous policy for this country. We had in Norway during the last war men who thought in that way, who brought in their friends, the Germans, to take over control in Norway, to protect Norway against possible invasion by the British and the French. History has provided a contemptible name for them—Quislings. We want no Quislings in this country, no Quisling in this Parliament, and the sooner that is made clear the better. Our policy— and it must be a specific policy—must be a policy of neutrality, the policy of maintaining our own civilisation in spite of the madness of the world and then, when it is all over, we may be able to contribute something to the reconstruction of what is left.
I had no intention when coming in here this evening of speaking on these lines. Had I such an intention I would have got my friend, Senator Hartnett, to prepare my speech as Deputy Dillon suggests. I intended to speak just on a few matters and I shall mention them quickly now. I have noticed in the columns of some newspapers circulating in this country for a long period now, aerial photographs of sections of the country. I have seen these published in the Independent and in the Evening Herald. When we were discussing the new Defence Bill, one of the matters which came up for consideration was this question of photography and the dangers inherent in photographs of particular features of the country. What is the idea behind the publication of these aerial photographs? Why are these aerial photographs of our cities, towns and harbours being taken and being published? Is there any ulterior purpose behind that? I should like to know what is being done by the Department of Defence in regard to it. If it is not an offence to take these photographs and publish them now, it should be made an offence immediately. If it is an offence now, then the machinery of the law should be operated because I consider the publication of these photographs of our cities, towns and villages, and particularly important parts of our countryside, is dangerous and can be of tremendous help to a Power that might wish to invade this country, either as friends or as enemies. I should like the Minister to deal with that specially when he is concluding.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister refer to the success of his recruiting campaign. That recruiting campaign was necessary if our permanent force were to be built up to the strength that would enable it to provide the instructors required for the non-permanent force. I was particularly glad of the decision of the Minister to recruit boys younger than 18 years of age. I have seen these boys in the Curragh and in Athlone as I was passing through. They are smart, intelligent-looking young men who will, I am perfectly certain, make excellent soldiers and instructors. For those who were in on the ground floor, as it were, when the Army was being started, it is a grand thing to see these young boys, many of them not so much younger than the soldiers who started the Army 30 years ago, not so very much younger than men who did their part in the fight against Britain a couple of years earlier, having all the qualities that will make for excellent soldiers. I sincerely hope that every opportunity will be given to them to perfect their military knowledge so that they will become instructors and leaders in the near future.
During the discussion of this Estimate in the past few years I put forward, and Deputy Major de Valera put forward the suggestion to the Minister that officers who retire from the Defence Forces on pension should not have their valuable services and experiences lost to the country. The Minister should make provision whereby those officers would be retained on the strength of the Defence Forces so that in the event of emergency their valuable services in specially assigned appointments would be available to the State.
In dealing with the effect that war may have on this country, even though we are neutral and our neutrality is respected, I referred to the possibility of death and destruction in our cities coming from atom bombs dropped on Britain. That situation must be faced up to. The new civilian defence force which has been organised must make all necessary arrangements to avoid as far as possible the great number of deaths which would inevitably follow if no arrangements were made. Military experts, I think, agree that there is very little protection against the atom bomb. But, in the sort of situation where we would get the backwash, as it were, of atomic weapons, it is quite possible that deaths and destruction can be avoided by transfer of population. That is something which this new civilian defence organisation must study and make arrangements for. If an atom bomb were dropped on Dublin City, no one can visualise what damage and destruction it could do.