Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Defence (Resumed).

In connection with this Vote, it is singularly unfortunate that the Government Party should think it expedient from time to time to raise war scares because the fact is that so long as the Cominform functions in Moscow the danger of war neither waxes nor wanes. If there is to be a third world war, it will be started by the Cominform at the time and in the place which the Cominform think holds out the highest prospect of victory for them. No ulterior event, no provocation, will precipitate it; no appeasement, no concessions, will postpone it by an hour. Any sane Government in any free democracy in the world must in the times we live in so dispose itself to be as ready as its circumstances will allow every day, every week, every month, every year for the outbreak of war, must be coldly reconciled to the fact that there is neither waxing nor waning in the probability of that event, and that it is self-deception to imagine that propaganda appearances of slackening of international tension make the probability of war more remote. It is highly probable that if war is to come it will come at a time when it looks least likely. I would ask the House to remember that even before the Cominform appeared in the world, in the 1914-18 war, two months before it began, in the month of June, I think, it was said by a responsible statesman that the horizon of Europe was never clearer than at that time. I think it is also true that prior to the invasion of Prague, in March, 1939, there was weighty opinion for the view that international tension had been greatly decreased subsequent to Munich. Yet, the Nazis started the war in September.

It would be well for people in this House to remember that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks are two sides of the same coin. Their methods are the same, their objectives are the same. The only blessing the world can rejoice in is that we have reason to believe that the Russian Nazi Bolsheviks are not quite so efficient as the German Nazi Bolsheviks in their day.

Therefore, I suggest to the House that, in considering the Defence Estimate, this Parliament and every future Parliament, so long as the Cominform functions, must make up its mind that we are employing our resources in the light of the possibility of war eventuating to-morrow, next week, next month or next year, with special emphasis on the possibility of war eventuating to-morrow or next week.

I do not want to sound unduly paradoxical yet I think it is true to say that with 12,000 men Ireland could have the most effective army in Europe considering her circumstances. Normal intelligence demands that in considering a Defence Estimate one has to ask oneself with whom one is likely to be at war. I think it unlikely that Ireland will become involved in a war for the Gran Chaco in Bolivia. The possibility of our involvement is remote. When you canvass, as you might, all the possibilities, the plain fact is that, although I suppose it is not considered tactful to say so, the danger against which we must provide is airborne invasion by the Russians. There is not any other danger. The Americans are not going to invade this country and they will not let the British invade it. The Russians may. The question is, what hope have we then of meeting such contingencies?

What about Germany?

The answer is, of course, that we cannot stop the Russians coming in to-morrow morning if they want to. Our business will be to put them out, as it would be our business to put anybody else out, and to fix with full, fair notice that our purpose will be to get them out. Deputy Cowan thinks, apparently, that that is quite a ludicrous prospect.

His army is ready.

A lot of people in this troubled world get dazzled by the power and ferocity of people like Berlin and Moscow and they think that when these powers of darkness are riding high, wide and handsome, they are unconquerable, but they are not.

The British Empire thought that for a long time, too.

I want, perfectly seriously, that our armed forces would be so disposed to fix such persons with notice that they are not unconquerable and that, no matter what measure of initial success they may achieve, they have no prospect whatever of securing, by force or persuasion, assent, actual or notional, to occupation of this country. That is perfectly feasible and it is because I believe it to be feasible through the medium of our own armed forces that I give expression to what may sound a paradox, that Ireland is so circumstanced that, with 12,000 men we may have the most effective Army in Europe.

South Korea had a slightly bigger army.

Yes, she had an army sufficient to hold her territory against some people's friends until those concerned with the preservation of freedom could come to her aid. Does the Deputy deny that?

God help the unfortunate people in that event.

I would a damn sight sooner seek it under the Stars and Stripes than to have to do it in a salt mine under a Bolshevik Republic. Which would the Deputy prefer?

The Reds.

That is a query which causes—

Amusement.

Amusement! It does not cause me a bit of amusement. I have no doubt at all. I would sooner have the right to pray for the help of God under the Stars and Stripes than to have to retire to a Siberian salt mine under the Hammer and Sickle.

You would retire any way.

Perhaps the Deputy would address his powerful intellect to consulting Senator Hartnett while I finish my speech so that he can tell us later when he comes to speak whether Senator Hartnett and he——

Let us get back to the Estimate.

Unfortunately the Deputy has been allowed to divert attention from the Estimate.

He was directing his questions at Deputy Dillon.

I want only to suggest to the Minister that inasmuch as it is true to say that much of the guerrilla tactics, which have so successfully preserved the sovereign independence of many States that were overrun during the world conflict, were taught to other countries by our people, it seems a pity that at this time when such tactics are the only recourse of small nations confronted with the aggression of great Powers, we should not bend our minds to that problem more closely than we appear to have done heretofore. There is no use deceiving ourselves that it cannot but cause derision amongest our people, when our own Army appears to desire to present itself as a force equipped with the heavy armament of a country——

A soldier speaks.

A Deputy is entitled to speak in this House without interruption.

The Deputy might remember that he is not now in the police court but in Dáil Éireann, and he might adapt his conduct to justify his unexpected promotion. I suggest that the House might reasonably consider that the continued outlay of money on antiquated heavy equipment is a waste of money and that the proper procedure is to aim to make of our Army of 12,000 men, the most effective force we can, made up of what I would describe as commando guerrillas. I suggest to the Minister that if our Army consisted of 100 cadres, strictly trained in commando guerrilla tactics and connected to a central headquarters by modern methods of peripatetic wireless communication and equipped with modern small arms, such a force divided up as military necessity might suggest to provide approximately four cadres, highly trained, in each county of the 26, no matter what power established a footing in this country, it would become manifest from an early stage that continued and effective resistance could be maintained in a way which would cause any attempted occupation of the country to be a matter of extreme difficulty for the Power which contemplated it. If they foresaw that in due course, there would arrive powerful assistance from other quarters before they could establish any claim to having secured the assent of the people of Ireland to their aggression a great many Powers that might be tempted to try their hand in the absence of such notification, would make up their minds that the game was not worth the candle.

There are available, and I observe in pictures I saw in the papers that the Minister is in process of acquiring equipment such as automatic weapons and this machine for firing things at approaching tanks. I understand there are developments of the Bazooka which are relatively inexpensive and very effective against heavy armoured vehicles. It has to be borne in mind that an invasion of this country from the only probable source must be of an airborne character. That implies that armoured support of such an invasion would be on a strictly limited scale. I have always felt that, in addition to the actual physical resistance to attack, a very necessary requisite for the maintenance of morale in the Army is the assurance to the Army that our people believe in it and support it, not for appearance sake, but because they believe that the Army can do what it is intended to do and can do it superlatively well. I cannot but believe that a great many of the officers of our Army are perfectly aware what many of our citizens know that they have not got the equipment and that they never will have the equipment to function as a continental army functions, with tanks, artillery and the like. Therefore, when you meet a dejected battalion of Irish soldiers going through the motions of manoeuvres suitable for a continental army, marching down the main highway of the Malahide Road, with twigs of trees on their helmets——

The political Bazooka is talking now.

The whole thing is farcical and has no relation at all to the military possibilities that are available to us. If, on the other hand, it were manifest that the defence policy of this country was founded upon effective guerrilla action——

The sale of the country.

Deputy Cowan must allow Deputy Dillon to make his statement without interruption.

It is terrible to have to sit and listen to this nonsense.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking.

Deputy Cowan is a dishonest, silly little man who hopes to save his shaky constituency in North Dublin by repeating in Dáil Éireann the speeches and interjections prepared for him by Senator Hartnett.

Senator Hartnett does not arise on this Estimate.

He writes his speeches and then the Deputy reads them out to demonstrate for notoriety's sake that he is anti-American without being pro-Communist. (Interruption.)

I must ask Deputy Cowan to desist from interrupting Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon is entitled to speak. Deputy Cowan will have his opportunity afterwards to make his statement. There is no excuse for interruptions.

I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to a remark made by the "chevalier" about the sale of this country.

Deputy Dillon on the Estimate.

Is that sale to be within the competence of Deputy Captain Cowan?

Deputy Dillon on the Estimate.

Deputy Cowan is simply trying the old game——

Deputy Dillon ought to pass from that.

I am too well up to this creature. It is the old game of hitting at somebody of relative respectability in order to acquire some reflected credit. Every fraud that ever got into Parliament by chance in the last century has tried to hang on by doing the same thing.

Deputy Dillon will please come to the Estimate.

Surely I am entitled to refer to this creature's observations?

The Deputy has referred sufficiently and replied sufficiently to any interruption which Deputy Cowan made. Deputy Dillon will now come to the Estimate.

I am talking about the Estimate. It is a new rule of order that one Deputy can assail what another Deputy is saying and the Chair intervenes to say that the second Deputy must limit his reply.

I have checked Deputy Cowan for his interruptions and I have equally checked Deputy Dillon.

For what?

For continued irrelevant remarks in respect of the Estimate. I ask him to come to the Estimate and deal with it relevantly.

As I was observing, one of the important things is that the Army should feel that it enjoys the confidence and the informed support of the population which it is its prime duty to protect. So long as an obligation is put on the Army of conforming to the procedure, the manoeuvre and the training proper to a continental army heavily equipped it must itself feel that the civilian population look upon it as not conforming to reality. Whereas, if the Army openly and avowedly eschewed, as beyond the reach of the equipment that they can have placed at their disposal, the tactical manoeuvre of highly-equipped armies and confined themselves to becoming masters of guerrilla warfare for the purpose of giving effect to the national policy of maintaining resistance in the field for the maximum period of time against aggression, from wherever it might come, the people would feel that every penny laid out on the Army was money well spent and that whatever forces are brought against us in the hereafter our own Army would be adequate to maintain the vital period of national resistance requisite to maintain our status while the help of allies was coming to assist us to repel the physical aggression made upon us.

I feel this so deeply that I think it is a matter of some urgency that public opinion should be intelligently mobilised behind the Army. I feel a certain sympathy with civilian and Army observers who contemplate the present situation and are driven to the impatience of saying that money spent on the Army is money wasted and that it is more important to have men hoeing turnips than wearing uniforms. I think such language is most imprudent, ill-informed and mistaken, but I cannot but feel that, so long as there is no evidence abundantly clear for all to see that the Army is training itself for the discharge of its function in a way that will be second to none in the world, it is legitimate for people to feel that the Army is training itself to do a job that it never can do because the State cannot afford to give it the equipment to do that job, and people will go on saying: "Are we not wasting money on the Army?"

I feel that our Army should set for itself, as no doubt it desires to set for itself, a standard of doing what it undertakes to do as well or better than any other army in the world. I do not think that we should offer them a task which they must always face with the feeling that they can only do it in a third or fourth-class way. We ought to offer them an assignment calling for equipment within our means and capacity to supply it and then say to them: "We expect from our Army nothing less than the best." I am convinced that we can get it. I am convinced that, in our circumstances, it is a very good best and it is a best which can effectively save and protect against all comers the fundamentals which the Irish Army is concerned to defend.

It must be a matter of great discouragement to men who give their lives to an Army career in this country to feel that the whole thing is a fatuity. How can an artillery officer here feel that his life is being most effectively spent in the service of this country when he knows perfectly well that, should the time come for him to conduct the defences of the country, he will not have any artillery; that it is not within the power of the State to keep abreast of the revolutionary changes that go on in the modernisation of artillery equipment and, even if we had artillery, that we would have to depend entirely on foreign ammunition wherewith to supply it and that, in a state of isolation, we could not keep the guns supplied beyond a very limited time?

We can keep abreast, that is to say, our financial resources will permit us to keep abreast, of the most rapid development of small arms equipment. We can accumulate formidable stocks of what, for want of a better term, I will call the Bazooka equipment. Let us not forget that when Great Britain stood in peril of invasion in 1941 it was Messrs. Allbright and Wilson who provided her with 7,500,000 Molotov cocktails on which that country was very glad to depend while heavier armaments were coming to them, and which they were satisfied as recently as 1941 were the most useful defensive weapon against the scale of armoured assault that might be brought to bear against them by a power which did not command the sea.

I suggest it is not beyond our resources to produce ancillary equipment of that kind. We have actually here a firm which manufactured the bulk of that equipment for Great Britain and there is no reason why they should not equip themselves with the materials to provide the State from our own accumulated resources with a not insignificant defensive weapon which would certainly be most useful in the hands of a highly-skilled, welltrained guerrilla army. What is more stonishing is that I believe we have actually got the raw materials, or a great many of them, with which to manufacture such armaments.

Major de Valera

To manufacture what?

The Molotov cocktail type of emergency bomb.

Major de Valera

We did that. We built a factory at Parkgate.

The Deputy will not forget that I was a member of the Defence Conference and I was familar with a great many of these things. I do not want to go into them too deeply now. The Deputy will be surprised to hear—and I think the Minister will confirm this—that I was told about that time that automatic weapons were no use as they got too hot for the soldiers to hold.

For the information of the Deputy, we did set up a factory in which we produced over 1,000,000 of the type of bomb to which the Deputy is referring. These were sent to all the posts and were available for use at any given moment.

Major de Valera

I am merely pointing out to the Deputy that it can be done.

I think we have better facilities for doing it now. In our special circumstances I do not think we should despise armaments of that character. I think they will be more valuable to us than the importing of out-of-date tanks, artillery which has not been fired since 1938 and equipment of that kind because heavy equipment requires perennial replacement and that replacement imposes a strain upon our resources and makes it extremely difficult for us to give to our Army all that our Army is entitled to expect, namely, the equipment that will enable it to become the best army in the world within the assignment allotted to it.

It is for that reason that I make the argument that our Army should be avowedly and proudly a guerrilla army trained for these tactics, an army which the State will equip as well or better than any army in the world for the assignment allotted to it. We should dismiss from our thought altogether the mental reservation that money spent on the Army is money wasted. We should feel that we are spending money on the best army in Europe.

That brings me back to where I started. It should not be beyond our capacity, paradoxical though that may be, to have the best army in Europe bearing in mind the special circumstances of the country that army is concerned to serve. That is a modest submission. It is one that should engage the attention of the House. The House is sometimes perhaps a bit reluctant to accept the fact that we should consciously, deliberately and proudly expect for our Army the assignment of guerrilla defence and eschew any attempt to identify our methods of defence with those of continental countries. That is an act of mind that must be made before this problem can be properly approached. Once made, I think the Army has a valuable future and every man from the highest officer to the youngest recruit can feel that in giving of his best he is giving highly valuable service to the community to which he belongs.

I think Parliament should not rest easy until it has created a situation in which it can say honestly and sincerely and without reservation that it is prepared to back the Army 100 per cent. and that it demands of the Army the highest performance of any army in Europe. That is the proper outlook. I have a horribly uncomfortable feeling ever since I have been in Parliament that a relationship has tended to grow between the Army and Parliament in which it is felt that we do not expect the Army to ask us for equipment they know we cannot afford and because they know that we do not expect of them very much more than a respectable front.

I think such a relationship must in the long run beget demoralisation and make it virtually impossible for the officers and N.C.O.s who have accepted the Army profession as their life's work to get from the men, or indeed from themselves, the quality of service they wanted to give when they first embarked upon that career. I believe it is in our power to create a situation in which those who serve in the Army can have a full and useful life. Given the facilities, we have in the Irish Army material which would do us proud in any company in the world.

Very often when reform is urgent it is impossible to give effect to it because it would involve heavy expenditure and such a revolutionary change as to make it unthinkable within the time at our disposal. The reform I now suggest fails on neither score. First of all, instead of spending £800,000, or trying to spend it and failing to spend it because we are unable to get the materials which our present schedule of purchases envisages, we would probably find that that amount of money, or perhaps a little more, would make available to us the best equipment the Army could possibly require for a guerrilla purpose. Secondly, the new training requisite to establish a very formidable body of soldiers is not of so revolutionary a character as to make it inaccessible to us. There is the commando tradition in Great Britain. There is the ranger tradition in the United States of America. Both of them are eminently adaptable to our Army and to its guerrilla tradition, from which both probably sprang originally. As they have developed in Great Britain and America they are available for intensive study by the soldiers of our Army to-day and our soldiers are eminently equipped to adapt their methods to the special requirements of our circumstances.

Can anyone doubt that if we had 100 bodies of men highly organised on these lines and properly equipped on these lines we would have a very effective and formidable defence force in this country? It would require no explanation from anyone who wished to examine it or understand it; it would be eminently qualified to speak for itself in every conceivable contingency that might arise.

Lastly, I think that any responsible Minister for Defence ought to go to the Government of which he is a member and put them this question: "I want an appreciation from the Minister for External Affairs, the Taoiseach and the Government as to whence the probable danger comes because there is not the least use in my equipping the Army with armaments which on the morrow of war will be wholly inaccessible to us. I must have present to my mind the maintenance of war supplies during the period of crisis and even if the equipment I get is from a source which lies straight in the path of probable danger if it is of a character which will permit me to use spares of ammunition to be derived from another source that is not so bad. But there is no use in my buying armaments to fire 303 ammunition and then go up to buy ammunition from America or Great Britain only to discover that all I can get is .3 or .282 ammunition and that there is no .303 being manufactured."

On the other hand, there are 112 adaptations of that situation which will occur to the mind of the Minister and his staff, but it is wrong not to be in a position to tell the House that these matters are being reviewed and considered and that the best decisions are being taken in the light of them. Let us face the fact that if this country is going to be attacked by the only Power that is concerned to attack it, the Cominform of Moscow, Finland and Sweden will get it long before us. Let us look that fact straight in the eye. If we buy Scandinavian armaments for which ammunition and spares cannot be obtained anywhere else then we are buying so much tripe and rubbish. The only place which we can get armaments that are going to be of any use to our people is somewhere from which the Russians cannot cut us off or from a domestic source of supply. I understand from the Minister that it is not the policy of the Government to manufacture ammunition or munitions of war on a large scale in this country. I think there are powerful arguments for the Government's decision in that regard. If we are to accept that as the settled policy of the Government then we ought if we wish to be realists arrange for sources of supply of ammunition from sources which will be open to us when the emergency comes.

Major de Valera

But if such sources are not available.

There is a variety of methods of trying to get them made available. If people want to eat beef you are entitled to say to them that they will have to buy it with armaments from you. We are not so helpless in that matter as the Deputy may think. We are in the position now that we have for sale a great many commodities which are in very short supply. If you have a leg of mutton you are in a position to say to the other fellow: "Unless you cough up you will get no mutton." There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. After all we are seeking to buy something and are well able to pay for it. That is a method worth trying. I think the Deputy will agree with me that anything more futile than to buy armaments which to the certain knowledge of all of us must become unusable within a very short period if a crisis should come upon us is the worst form of self-delusion. It is a criminal thing.

Was it not the previous Minister who set out and arranged to buy this?

Is that little creature going to keep interrupting? He has been put down three or four times already by the Ceann Comhairle and now he is going to start it over again when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is here.

I am asking a question: was it not the last Government of which the Deputy was Minister that made this arrangement?

This is a disorderly interruption. The impudent little chancer wants to get some reflected glory.

I think there ought to be an end to that kind of language.

What language?

The Deputy should not use that expression.

Impudent little chancer!

The word chancer should not be used.

It should not be used?

If so, I withdraw it. That will cause amazement in the country.

It is an unparliamentary expression.

In these circumstances I withdraw it. I have made these submissions inasmuch as the Army's prime concern is to defend the nation and the civilian population. I suppose it is not presumption on the part of the civilian to make certain representations in respect thereto. It has been well known in every free country in the world that a civilian Minister for War is not at all a bad institution. It has been established in most democratic countries. The introduction of military personnel to high positions of control in policy making and in the direction of the Department of Defence is a dangerous experiment.

I have intervened for the purpose of making submissions which I think have some value and of reiterating the principle that the Department of Defence and matters pertaining thereto should not and must not become in this Parliament the exclusive prerogative of ex-soldiers. Their experience in the service of the Army will be valuable in considering matters in relation to the Army but we must bear in mind that men who have served in the Army and who have seen it function close up very often get a somewhat distorted view. The degree of distortion is, of course, proportionate to the soldiers' or officers' experience in the Army. The claim of some of them to an exclusive prerogative in discussing the Defence Force is often commensurate with the Army's anxiety to see the end of their military career. Bearing these considerations in mind, I am sure the House will be glad to hear not only the views of the most unlikely ex-soldiers but I would hope of the most confirmed and unrepentant civilian Deputy.

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.

Scientists say that five atom bombs would wipe out Britain.

That is the horrible prospect of war. That is why we ought to make it clear that we will not engage in a war and why everything we can do as a civilised nation should be done to persuade madmen in other countries not to plunge the world into war. But, if we remain neutral, there is very little likelihood of atom bombs being dropped on us. Our civilian defence organisation, however, should make provision for the protection of our people against the backwash of atomic bombs being dropped elsewhere.

I have been in very close contact with the Army over a great number of years. I know that the officers and soldiers have their grouses, as officers and soldiers elsewhere have. But, looking at it in a broad general way over all the years, I know that our General Staff has now reached a stage when the officers who comprise it are the equal of any officers holding equivalent appointments anywhere else in the world. Having read a considerable number of the authentic stories of what happened in the first world war and in the second world war, I have no doubt that our officers, in professional training and in sound common sense, will not be surpassed by officers of equal rank anywhere else.

I believe that when they put forward their suggestions for the defence and protection of this State to the Government, the Government are getting sound advice from men competent to give that advice. I am prepared to take that advice any day rather than the advice of Deputy Dillon, whose whole ambition seems to be to dispose of this country by sale to somebody, whether it was to Britain in the past or to America now. I feel that as the people of this country had contempt for Deputy Dillon's views over the last 30 years they will have contempt for his views on this matter of the sale of the country now.

It is a pity that talk should ever arise in this Parliament about the sale of the country. It is no help to the defence of the country to make any such statement. However, it is a free Parliament and we are entitled to express our views, and I suppose it is only reasonable that views will be expressed with which other people are bound to disagree. I do not propose to follow up the speech which has just been delivered. Deputy Dillon is capable of defending himself, if defence is required. Therefore, I propose to address myself to the Vote before the House and to discharge what I regard as the primary duty of any Deputy, namely, that we get the best value for the money that is utilised in the defence of our country.

I regret to learn from the Minister's speech that, while he has increased the strength of the Regular Army, our Second and Third Line Reserves have diminished considerably. That is a pity, because I have no hesitation in saying that the defence of this country lies more with the forces outside the regular forces than with the regular forces.

You mean to rely on the loyalty of the people?

Yes, and on the strength of the forces we can put into the field if and when required. If the Minister for Defence and the Headquarters Staff are satisfied that 12,500 men are sufficient to give us ample protection, then I am satisfied that this expenditure should be on 12,500 men. Of course, the Minister has not said that. He does say that 12,500 are better than 5,700 or 7,500. I admit that 15,000 would be better than 12,000 and 20,000 would be better still. From the way the Vote has been presented and because of the manner in which Government speakers have spoken we can take it that 12,500 is regarded as the safety margin and that anything below that figure is inadequate. That is the implication of the Minister's speech. At a time when we had 7,500 men we had over 30,000 in the F.C.A. That was a fairly effective force. We had the Second Line and Third Line Reserve. The Minister now tells us that these have diminished. Certainly the money that is being spent on them is considerably less. I would prefer to see a Volunteer force in the nature of the F.C.A., and a reserve rather than any large standing Army. Times change and individuals change with the times. On one occasion I heard the present Head of the Government declare that this country could be well and truly defended by a Volunteer force costing no more than £1,000,000 and that it was a shame and a disgrace to spend a farthing more. That was his view. I will not tie him to it to-day.

Major de Valera

As the Deputy has said, times have changed, particularly in regard to money, equipment and everything else.

The Deputy can make his own speech. I am now making mine.

The Deputy is not quoting accurately.

I am not quoting. I am paraphrasing. If the Minister denies that was said I will get the reference, but the Minister can take it I am not saying something the Taoiseach did not say. I hope that our Army will be as effective a defence force as the country can afford and that care will be exercised in the expenditure arising in connection with the training of that force. I notice that transport costs have jumped by £65,000. Petrol and oil show an increase of £55,000 over last year. These are substantial sums.

There is a rather peculiar situation in relation to the Army. At no matter what figure the military personnel stands, the civilian end of it always goes up. It is still steadily increasing. There is one civilian for every eight members of the defence forces. The expenditure upon civilian employment reaches the enormous figure of £770,000. I admit the civilians are very efficient. They ought to be. Is not that a very extraordinary situation? I was in the Army when we had 50,000 actually serving in it and we had not one-fifth of the present number of civilians. As the Army grows smaller the civilian side of it grows larger. In the event of hostilities I do not know where those civilians will fit in. They are not under military command. We might find ourselves faced with the extraordinary position of seeing the Army march one way and the civilians march the other. That does not commend itself to me. Had I been Minister for any length of time I would have taken steps to have that situation reviewed. If the soldier personnel received the same rate of wages as the civilian personnel because of being experts in a particular job, they would still wear the uniform.

Does that include civil servants?

Yes. On the question of neutrality, we all know that this country has no aggressive intentions. It never had. That is why we call the Army the Defence Forces. We have no intention whatever of invading any country.

Not even the Six Counties?

No. Our Army is for defence only. That is the most difficult role any army can fulfil. If we had a policy of aggression we would have no trouble in finding allies to help us in defending ourselves. It is not easy to get anybody to come to our aid, because no one will come merely for the love of us. They will come to protect themselves in some particular way. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by Deputy Captain Cowan that we would not accept aid if we were attacked. I would be surprised to learn that that is the policy of the Government, or that it was their policy during the last war. Of course we would be prepared to accept help from somebody else.

Again, the present head of the Government is on record as saying that our policy of neutrality during that time was a friendly neutrality towards certain nations. I think he was right in saying that. Therefore, let us not be taken as accepting the view that was expressed here that we do not want aid from anybody. We do, if we are attacked, but let us hope that the necessity will not arise.

It is of the utmost importance that the resources of the State should be mobilised to their full extent to defend our neutrality and to defend our rights against all aggressors, whoever they might be, and that our programme and policy would be such that they will have the support of all the people of the country, no matter what section, creed or class they belong to: that, no matter how we may differ amongst ourselves, if the necessity arises, each one of us can stand shoulder to shoulder as we did in the past.

Again, let me remind the Deputy who has just gone out and who said that Deputy Dillon had never worn the uniform, that the head of the Government thanked Deputy Dillon for his part in the Defence Conference. When Deputy Dillon offered to serve in any capacity that was thought desirable, he was advised to remain in his civilian capacity. I do not like to see a Minister of the State who has the facts at his disposal sitting and listening to an attack of that type being made upon a colleague of that Defence Conference which did so much good for the country during the last emergency. I think that a Minister should intervene when a member of the Council of State and of the Defence Conference was being attacked like that as if he had done something that was dishonourable or that was treacherous to the nation, particularly when that was not so. I think the Minister should have taken steps to defend that person's honour, no matter what Party he belonged to.

Deputy Dillon is well able to defend himself and I do not have to come to his rescue.

Major de Valera

Why was he expelled from Fine Gael?

I am addressing the Chair and not Deputy de Valera or the Minister. I asserted before that Deputy Dillon is well able to defend himself. I think I am entitled to express a view as to what I think should be the policy and attitude of the Minister and the Government in this House. I can safely say that, on one momentous occasion. I could have sat and not have done something, but yet because I thought truth and honesty demanded it, I did. That was commended by everyone. Very few, however, follow that example when it relates to others. Is it not time, on the question of defence, that that spirit should prevail? When small incidents arise from time to time I think there should be no mud slinging.

I regret the reduction of the First Line Reserve by 20 per cent. I think the Minister should do everything possible to take up on the Second Line. I think the money voted for that purpose will be well spent. Administration, I think, comes under this Vote. On that, I think that the Minister and the Government, and the Army Headquarters if they had any responsibility for it, are to blame in connection with the demonstration which was given recently of new equipment and bomb throwers that were purchased. Invitations were sent out to the military personnel of other countries, the newspaper men and to all and sundry to attend that demonstration. We had, on this side of the House, people who would like to see the demonstration as it related to something which they had done themselves. Yet, no invitation was sent to them.

Does the Deputy wish to have an invitation? If the Deputy does we can easily arrange for it.

The Deputy is a member of the Headquarters Mess of the Army and has never at any time refused any invitation he received either from the Army or the Minister. He has never got an invitation at any time except to one ceremony—every year at Arbour Hill. From the day Fianna Fáil went into office—I do not mind—I was invited twice officially to Headquarters. That is true. That is not my complaint. You are perfectly entitled to do it.

When you were Minister did you invite anyone up?

With regard to this demonstration of new arms, my predecessor and myself had some part in the purchase of them. I am not going to argue whether I bought them or whether the Minister bought them. They were purchased by the Army. When the demonstration was given, invitations were sent to the Americans, to the British and to the newspaper people. There was no invitation to any member of the Opposition or to any member of the House. We would like to know what improvements have been made since last year. The Americans know all about it now, and the British know, but Deputy Hickey, Deputy O'Higgins or Deputy Cowan do not know the first thing.

I wonder if that is the right line to adopt? I do not think it is one that Deputies should approve of. I am seriously interested, and so is every Irishman, in the Defence Forces of this State as well as in its defence. I would like to take part in viewing and in being informed, as regards the development of the new arms. I am glad to know that these arms are a success. They were paid for out of the last Vote and the previous Vote. Let us hope that the demonstration which was given to the Americans and the British was effective. At least, they will know that they will have something to contend with if they, instead of people from behind the Iron Curtain, think of invading us.

I regret that this Vote is being taken separately. I suppose the other Votes will be moved immediately afterwards. There are many things to be said about military service pensions and disability pensions. It was customary, I know, to debate all these things upon the one Vote. This is the first time, in a long period, that the Vote for the Department of Defence has been debated separately, and I presume that the time will be made available to discuss the other matters.

I would like to know from the Minister if he is satisfied with the Army jumping team. I feel it should have every consideration and attention from the Minister; it has helped to put the Irish Army on the map as far as the international situation is concerned. I would be glad to know from the Minister if he is satisfied with the material in the horses and with the training they are getting. Perhaps the Minister would give us more information on that subject.

I will conclude by saying a few words on the question of war-like stores. As my colleague, Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, has said, the Minister has very great difficulties to overcome in this matter. We know what they are, and we wish him every success in overcoming them, because he has not got an easy problem. In my opinion, there is considerable overestimation for this item, in view of the fact that a very substantial sum has been paid on account out of last year's Estimate for some of the stores that might become available. I presume that the increases in various other items were necessary because of the increase in the Army personnel and that, therefore, we must accept them.

We hope and pray that peace will be the order of the day. During the régime of the inter-Party Government both my predecessor in office and myself worked upon a programme of peace, up to a certain extent, and then, due to the pressure brought upon us by the then Opposition, that we should stockpile and put in more stores, we were required to change our tactics. The present Government are working on the assumption that war is likely to come, and that they mean to be ready for it. Let us hope they are wrong and that war will not come, and let us hope that our plan was the better one. It is only a question of opinion at the moment as to whether it was or not, and time alone will tell. If war does come, then it is doubtful if we have made sufficient provision. On the other hand, if peace is maintained for any great length of time, it will have to be admitted that the expenditure was a very high one. However, I assert that it was well worth it, because, at least, it was an insurance policy for the defence of the nation in so far as the State could afford it, and in so far as the Government of the day thought fit. A nation that is made up of the Deputy Dillons, the Deputy Cowans and the Deputies on all sides of the House is our native country. No matter what anybody may say to the contrary, it is astounding how, if the time came, we would stand shoulder to shoulder in its defence. May it ever be so.

I have listened to things being said in this House this evening which, in my opinion, should not have been said, as far as the defence and the safety of our country are concerned. One would get the impression that we were all preparing for war, though against whom nobody could tell us. Deputy Dillon told us that if another war took place it would originate with the Cominform. I feel we should go back a little into history and ask ourselves who started the 1914-18 war and who started the 1939 second world war. I think everybody will agree with me that it was not the Cominform who initiated either of those two wars. If we have a third world war, I feel that it will be capitalism and its ramifications throughout the world that will be responsible for it. I assert that with the loyalty and determination of our people and with an efficient Army we can look to the future with hope. I do not believe in having a big Army. Rather do I believe in having the most efficient Army possible with a Volunteer force behind it and with every resource in the country mobilised to support and defend it, if the time should come when it would be called into action. I am opposed to spending a further £1,000,000 on our Army; if we were to spend a further £1,000,000 or even a further £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in providing food, houses and a better standard of living for our people I believe we would have very strong support for our efficient Army. I do not believe there is any great case to be made for having 12,000 or 20,000 soldiers to defend our country.

It is rather strange that we should be told that a third world war is imminent. There are some people who would try to get us into this war. Two hundred and fifty thousand Irishmen volunteered to fight for small nations in the 1914-18 war; that was one in eight of the country's population; 50,000 of them were killed—one in 40 of the population—and the remainder of them came home. We were then told that the freedom of small nations did not apply to Ireland. Are we to be allowed by some people to be complacent enough to think that the next world war will be fought on behalf of small nations? I think the less talk we have about the international situation and the ramifications of capitalists the better it will be for this country and for the people of the country. Let us stand clear of all armies and do what we can for ourselves in our own way.

When I hear all this talk from Deputy Cowan and from Deputy Dillon I begin to have still more regard and still more respect for the men who went out in 1916 to challenge the greatest empire in the world, and the more I salute the dead of this country and the men who are still alive—some of them Ministers and some ex-Ministers—who fought for this country in those days.

During the inter-Party Government's term of office Deputy de Valera was asking questions across the House as to what preparations we were making for war and as to what stores we were buying in. On one occasion, when I told him that I never heard such bluff, he said, in reply, that he was calling my bluff. I want to be serious with the Taoiseach and with every member of this House. Let us be serious with the Irish people. Our Army is not strong enough but let us make it more efficient by building up a Volunteer force behind it. Let us spend money in the provision of food, homes, and a decent standard of living for our people. There are thousands of them homeless and without sufficient food. Such a state of affairs will not generate any great enthusiasm or loyalty in case we are attacked by any outside force.

We should concentrate on the resources that should be developed instead of spending extra money on the Army. I could say more but I do not consider that mention should be made in this House of how our Army is constituted. Having regard to all the questions that have been asked about the Army, we should know by now how many buttons the soldiers have on their uniforms.

I want now to deal with the administrative side of the Army. I received a copy of the Appropriation Accounts during the past week. There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect of sub-head T— Military Lands—to the effect that a dwelling-house with approximately two and a half acres of land was purchased in 1948 for the sum of £4,400, and was occupied by an officer from October. 1948, to November, 1949, when it was vacated owing to its bad state of repair. The cost of rendering the building suitable for reoccupation was estimated at £3,000 and the work was not proceeded with. I would like to know from the Minister when he is replying who are the people responsible for the inspection of these premises and if they are still in the employment of the Army or the Government.

There is a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect of sub-head Y (2)—The Reserve—to the effect that negotiations for the acquisition of premises for the accommodation of a local unit of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil were opened in September, 1946, but, owing mainly to delay in connection with the investigation of title, the purchase was not completed until May, 1950, when a sum of £950 was paid. The paragraph states that the premises were reported to be structurally sound when examined in September, 1946, but, in October, 1948, the local authority complained that the walls at one side had sagged and subsequent engineering reports confirmed the existence of the structural defect. In April, 1950, when it was estimated that repairs to permit of a limited use of the premises would cost £1,400, it was decided to dispose of them, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General states that he understands that an offer of £400 has been accepted.

I would like to know from the Minister who was responsible for that type of work in the Army and if he considers that those who are responsible for reporting on buildings like that are worthy of employment in the Army or in the Defence Forces. I hope the Minister will explain how these things can happen in the Army.

It would be wise of the Deputy to ask the same question when the Board of Works Vote comes up for discussion.

I have something in mind for that, too. Now I wish to raise a matter which I raised here prior to 1943, about the land in Fermoy for which we are paying £224 a year rent and on which the members of our Defence Forces cannot play football or hurling. In 1939 the present Minister was prosecuted by a group of people known as the Fermoy Trust Limited for trespass because soldiers were playing football and hurling on this land. The case went to the Circuit Court and the Minister won it. The case was appealed and the Minister lost the appeal and had to pay a fine. I suggested at that time, and I suggest now, that the Minister should pursue that matter to its logical conclusion. He should acquire the land and have it in the control of the State, so that the soldiers could play football and hurling on that land. I suggest that that land, for which we pay £224 a year, should have been in the possession of the Government long before now. If legislation is required to deal with the matter, the Minister should not hesitate to bring in the necessary legislation. I raised the matter and was told: "The British had a lease which we took over. It is not an agreement made by our Department and, if you like, it is a liability taken over by us from the British War Office and it is a question whether we will surrender the lease or acquire the land completely." I am suggesting to the Minister that it is time legislation was brought in to ensure that we have command of the land in Fermoy or anywhere else.

Is it true that the money we are paying for that land, £224 a year, is a Napoleonic pension to somebody? I would ask the Minister to explain that because, if we have a feeling of pride for the men who sacrificed their lives, without expecting pensions or anything else, in order to secure the political and economic independence of the country, it is time these matters were rectified. I would ask the Minister when he is replying to indicate that the lands in question will be taken over by the State, so that we will not have to pay £224 for the use of this land, on which our soldiers cannot play football or hurling.

We have an Army that could take its place anywhere in the world. I am not prepared to admit that it is wise to spend the money we are spending beyond what we have been spending for the last number of years. I am prepared to give the Army anything that they require to make them still more efficient. In the matter of ammunition let us not depend on anybody outside the country, if we can make it here.

I am trying to understand why it is necessary to bring Americans, Britons or anybody else here to study our latest weapons of defence. I am at a loss to understand it. When we fought the greatest empire in the world we had the loyalty and determination of the people behind us. We can look with confidence to the loyalty and determination of our people. There should be less discussion of our Army.

My intervention in this debate is due to the slight controversy between Deputy Dillon and Deputy Cowan as to the efforts that were being made in the past to secure a supply of warlike material for his country. I am perfectly satisfied that all Parties in this House are anxious to defend or safeguard the freedom of this country. I am satisfied that every effort has been made in the past to secure warlike stores from those countries from which it would be possible for us in the case of an outbreak of war to replenish our stores. We should get down to facts in the House with regard to the limited opportunities we have at present of securing arms or warlike stores from Britain or America.

I think we must accept it now that there is very little hope that this country can get, either from America or Britain, any decent quantity of war-like stores. It is an amazing situation but that is the position as I see it. Ireland is looked upon as a country that is totally opposed to the régime that is at present in existence behind the Iron Curtain, and the present line-up in the world situation is that you are either for or against the type of rule that is imposed on nations behind the Iron Curtain. In the event of another world conflagration, the struggle will lie between the nations on this side of the curtain and those subject to that type of rule which we all deplore. It is known to the world that our sympathies are not with Russia and that we can be depended upon, if warlike stores are made available to us, to guard the liberty of this country to the utmost extent possible—but in spite of that being apparent to the nations in the West, and to America in particular, they still persist in their failure to supply us with the minimum amount of warlike material that would enable us to defend this country as it should be defended.

I should like to put my views to the House as to the reasons why Britain in particular is not prepared to make available the equipment that we need. I think it should be quite clear now that the remarks of Mr. Churchill at the conclusion of the last war, when he spoke of Ireland's attitude during the war, govern Britain's position to-day. Mr. Churchill savagely attacked this country for the policy it pursued during the last war. He was ably answered at the time by the then Taoiseach. Mr. Churchill sought to suggest that it was the duty of this portion of Ireland which had achieved its freedom, to throw in its lot with Britain which still holds in subjection six of our counties.

I do not believe any Party in Ireland was prepared at that time or since to accept the viewpoint put forward by Mr. Churchill, but it is quite apparent that the views then held by Mr. Churchill and his Party have not since changed, no matter what Government may have held office in Britain. The belief is still present to the minds of members of the British Government and to the minds of British military heads that it is essential that Ireland be held in a weak position with regard to warlike stores, so that if necessity demanded it, on the part of Britain, she could jump into this portion of Ireland to-morrow morning and acquire airfields and ports for the use of her troops and her navy. The sole reason why she is not prepared to make warlike stores available to Ireland is to ensure that, in the event of her being forced to take action against this country, we would not be in a position to use these stores and arms against her. That is the position as I see it.

In other words, the situation in this country to-day is just as dangerous as it was during the last war; it is quite possible that in our undefended state, this year, next year or the year after. Britain, if she felt like it and thought she would get away with it, in the event of a world war would attempt to land her troops here in Ireland and take over our airfields and our ports. It is the duty of this House to ensure that all possible steps be taken to defend this country in the event of such action being taken by Britain or America. That is why I endorse some of the remarks which I heard from Deputy Hickey. If it is impossible to get warlike stores from abroad, then it is our duty, if we can possibly do so, to produce here in Ireland the type of equipment that would be useful for our defence. I refer in particular to the manufacture of small arms and ammunition. I think it is quite possible, even with our limited resources, to provide our full needs in small arms and ammunition. I know that it is an impossibility for us to produce heavier armaments and we should forget about that, but I think that the possibility of setting up a factory here for the production of small arms should be seriously considered by the Government, in view of the fact that it is impossible to get proper material from outside sources.

I am not in a position to say whether it was wise or otherwise to purchase warlike materials from Sweden. I have not any information at my disposal in regard to that matter, but there is a rumour abroad that the particular source from which the present warlike stores have been procured has now dried up and that there is little or no possibility of getting extra supplies, replacements or further quantities of ammunition from that particular source. It has been further suggested that the type of ammunition for certain of the weapons imported is not suitable for the type of armament at present being used by the United Nations. If that is the case, then the amount we have purchased would last for a very limited time, and I think we could throw all the weapons and the war-like materials we have procured on the refuse heap. However, I should like the Minister to assure us that in the purchase of these stores, from Sweden in particular, steps were taken to ensure that a continous supply of supplementary material would be made available, if we desired to purchase it.

The question of the type of training suitable for our Army was mentioned by Deputy Dillon. I do not know whether Deputy Dillon has any actual experience of Army training but, whether he has that experience or not, he is quite right in suggesting that our Army should train to a great extent on guerrilla lines. If we have a standing Army of 12,000 men and are subjected to an invasion by air from any part of the world, that invading force will consist of the toughest troops in the world armed with the most modern weapons. In addition to that, it is likely that heavy artillery, heavy tanks and so forth can be dropped here by air overnight. Is it seriously suggested that a small but well-trained and efficient Army should face that type of invasion en masse? We must forget here in Ireland thinking in terms of divisions and armies. We have not got the men or the heavy material to equip them. If we have not got the men and the material, then we shall have to improvise and adapt ourselves to the situation.

I think that old soldiers in this House will agree with me that guerrilla tactics in the past in this country proved very successful, and it is to a great extent on guerrilla tactics that any hope can be held out that this country can save itself or hold the enemy off until suitable help from outside arrives. I am speaking now from practical experience, even though I was a very junior member of the Army. I often felt rather foolish during manoeuvres when we talked in terms of divisions, of the battalion on your left, the battalion on your right and the battalion in reserve. Very often you had ten men in the battalion in reserve and one man representing the battalion on your right. That is not facing facts, and is not helpful to troops on manoeuvres.

I actually had an experience during one set of manoeuvres of having the duty of laying down mines over a certain area. I must confess that the type of work I was engaged in was the setting of 25 lb. anti-tank mines over a large area of tactical positions. I had a number of lorries under my control which were filled with circular blocks of timber with a cross painted on them, which represented 25 lb. anti-tank mines. The troops under my control took these off the lorries and placed them as they were told. That, to my mind, is very foolish. I hope that the Minister will not take me up wrongly when I bring these things to his notice. I hope I am doing so in a helpful spirit, because I hate to see that type of sham taking place. Let us deal with facts, not with myths so far as the size of the Army and its training are concerned.

Surely you would not expect them to use real mines on manoeuvres?

You would expect that the mines would be available for use. It was quite possible to lay down as many of these dummy mines as you liked without having regard to the number of real mines which it would be necessary to put down. In addition to that I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a type of training which has taken place in the Army since 1940. We always seem to be in the position that we want to imitate what the British Army does. I do not think it is wrong for our officers to go abroad on training courses. That is necessary so that they may have the most up-to-date knowledge of developments in Great Britain, France, and elsewhere. But I do think that when we start to train our own troops we should pick the most suitable aspects of that training given to our officers abroad rather than accept in full the type of training in operation in Great Britain.

I propose to give concrete examples of that to the Minister. When the so-called commandos were formed in Great Britain they were all the rage there and proved highly successful. The training that these men got was harsh in the extreme. Our Army authorities decided to find out all about this commando training and a number of officers were sent to learn the full details of the type of training and tacties involved. When the first commando course was held in Ireland I had the doubtful privilege of being on it and I had the doubtful privilege of acting as instructor on most of the courses afterwards for officers and N.C.O.s. The hardships that had to be endured at that time were such that to-day many of these men are crippled with rheumatism and similar complaints. A number of doctors have told me that the majority of their patients were ex-Army men. Commando training at that period was so harsh that the officers and men were expected to undergo conditions similar to those in actual warfare. They were expected to stay out for days without suitable clothing, to swim rivers in the middle of winter and to run for miles like greyhounds; and they did it. They responded magnificently to that training and I do not think you could get a finer body of men in any army. However, the craze for that type of training died down. In Great Britain it was found that it was a wrong thing to put men to the utmost limit of endurance except when under actual fire or when the necessity arose. It was a wrong thing and no man should have been asked to give his utmost until the crisis came.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.
Barr
Roinn