De Valera and "Neutrality"

Abiola considers the Irish stance during World War II and is surprised to discover that almost 100,000 (Free State) Irishmen volunteered to fight against Hitler despite Ireland's "Neutrality". Indeed these men, like their predecessors in WWI have been largely written out of official Irish history. Irish nationalism has tended to cede the celebration of the sacrifice of those who fought in both wars to the Unionist tradition despite the fact that the "Loyalists" were less numerous. However, I must disagree with Abiola's reiteration of the default view abroad of De Valera's conduct:

I've known about Eamon de Valera's paying his last respects to "Chancellor Hitler" for quite some time now, but I still can't help feeling nonplussed that anyone should have been so consumed with hatred for Britain that he should have been willing to go that far; fear of German aggression can't explain it, as Germany had obviously lost the war long before then, and the cessation of fighting in Europe was clearly going to occur in a matter of days. No, de Valera's message of condolence to Admiral Donitz was clearly a matter of sticking a finger in the eye of the hated British enemy.

Now, it is certainly true that de Valera was, as Abiola puts it, a "hypernationalist" and it is probably true that his foreign birth had some influence on the degree of his nationalist sentiment, but I think it is an error, however understandable, to characterise de Valera's motive this way. To understand why de Valera offered condolences to Germany it is important to remember two things.

1) How rhetorical posturing is rewarded in a Catholic culture which prizes intention more highly than outcome.

2) The Machiavellian tradition in Irish politics, particularly in Fianna Fail, established by Eamon de Valera.

I wrote before about the issue of compliance in catholic cultures:

My guess is that growing up Catholic encourages a capacity to hold two opposing views at the same time: "We should keep tax rates high enough to fund public services" sits easily with "Hmm, that seems a bit steep, how much will you do it for cash?" The reason is most religious dogma, if taken literally, is pretty harsh and pretty soon comes up against human nature which encourages such "sins" as anger, sloth, gluttony, envy etc.. One solution to this is to reform the dogma to make it easier to stick to it, another is to cut back on the rules and have a more personal interpretation. What Catholicism offers is the possibility of paying lip service to the dogma, but not actually complying with it. You might feel bad about the sin but you can always wipe the slate clean with a trip to confession.

The effect of this view is that, so long as you express the "correct" sentiment, it doesn't really matter what you do. Those who imagine de Valera acted out of spite or malice seriously understimate his rationalism and, indeed, cunning.

As for de Valera's machiavellianism - drinking soup with a fork was how Lloyd George described dealing with him - witness his conduct during the treaty negotiations. Instead of going to London to negotiate peace with Britain, a peace he surely knew would comprise an unpopular partition, he sent his "hard man" deputy, Michael Collins. When it became clear that there would be a split within Irish republicanism between those who accepted partition, albeit on a purportedly temporary basis, and those who rejected it outright, de Valera sided with the rejectionists and fought a civil war against the "treaty" forces led by Collins. De Valera eventually found himself the leader of a free but partitioned country, his rival Collins dead, but without having to take any responsibility for a partition that was deeply unpopular even among those in favour of the treaty.

A good example of a contemporary machiavellian Fianna Failer is the "most devious, most cunning of all" - as described by Charlie Haughey - Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. When he ousted Albert Reynolds as leader, Reynolds knew his number was up when Bertie ostentatiously showed him his own vote for Reynolds to remain as leader, a vote he already knew would be irrelevant.

Any sober assessment of the actions of de Valera during the war would conclude that Ireland was neutral in favour of the Allies. By remaining "neutral", de Valera avoided having to accept partition: our constitution still retained a claim on the six remaining counties of Northern Ireland. Further, by adopting a rhetorically aggressive stance towards Britain, he was able to placate the small but active minority of extremists hostile to any rapprochement with the "enemy".

The bald fact was De Valera would not have carried out a hollow gesture like paying his "respects" to Hitler for reasons as trivial or frivolous as cocking a snook at the Brits. Any Irish person offended by this was unlikely to do anything about it, meanwhile de Valera was able to keep enough of the extremists "inside the tent, urinating out", so to speak.

Comments

[Brian]

I'm sure I don't know as much about Irish history as you but was the Gladstone comment (soup with a fork) about de Valera or was it about someone else but COULD BE APPLIED to de Valera.

According to sources I checked, Gladstone died in 1898 (resigned from office in 1894) and de Valera was born in 1882. So de Valera wasn't even a teenager when Gladstone left office and was only 16 when he died. It just seemed unlikely to me that Gladstone would've been in a position to come to such a judgement about a kid.

[Frank McGahon]

Aarggh, I meant to say Lloyd George: getting my British Liberals mixed up!!!

[Brian]

I was gonna say...

My grasp of Irish history ain't that great, but it struck me as odd. Glad to know I know a little something. :-)

[enda johnson]

the difference between your analysis and abiola's is that abiola thinks he was consumed by hatred for the brits, whereas you think he was pandering to those consumed by hatred of the brits. much of a muchness really?
history has not been kind to the oul' bastard.

[Frank McGahon]

I don't think it is "much of a muchness", De Valera was a lot smarter than to just snub Britain for the sake of it.

Also, there's a huge difference between a "free" and a "costly" pander. Dev's pander here was pretty much free, there was not going to be any immediate cost, it was a simple hollow gesture which might have been enough to keep extremists from drifting into the arms of a demoralised rump "IRA".

A good example of a costly pander is Bertie's disastrous "benchmarking" initiative which rewards an already cossetted and job-secure public sector with inflated non-performance-related wages which purport to be equivalent to those in the more risky private sector.

[J.Cassian]

Louis MacNeice's poem "Neutrality" (written in 1942) is worth reading in this context too.

[Frank McGahon]

Here it is:

The neutral island facing the Atlantic,
The neutral island in the heart of man,
Are bitterly soft reminders of the beginnings
That ended before the end began.

Look into your heart, you will find a county Sligo,
A Knocknarea with for navel a cairn of stones,
You find the shadow and sheen of a moleskin mountain
And a litter of chronicles and bones.

Look into your heart, you will find fermenting rivers,
Intricacies of gloom and glint,
You will find such ducats of dream and great doubloons of ceremony
As nobody to-day would mint.

But then look eastward from your heart, there bulks
A continent, close, dark, as archetypal sin,
While to the west off your own shores the mackerel
Are fat - on the flesh of your kin.

Louis MacNeice: Collected Poems
pub., 1966 Faber & Faber

[enda johnson]

heavy stuff alright, but it all turned out ok in the end. phew! what do people make of:

Are bitterly soft reminders of the beginnings
That ended before the end began.

i'm not sure what he's getting at - any suggestions?

[J.Cassian]

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Winston Churchill, 1942

[Aidan Kehoe]

I'm unconvinced that signing up for the side of Stalin--and to a lesser, but still existing, extent, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay--would have been a much better idea.

[Frank McGahon]

So you prefer Hitler?

[Dick O'Brien]

Nice to see some MacNeice fans here.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Frank: No. I think the two were much of a muchness. Hitler being more focused didn't make Stalin the lesser evil.

[Frank McGahon]

Stalin was indeed evil, but it was only those countries assured of protection no matter what who could afford the luxury of affecting a neutral stance. The fact was: everybody else had to choose and in the case of WWII, Stalin was the lesser of two evils. If Hitler had overrun Europe, - which would, by the way, have included Ireland, destined to be one big farm for the reich - you would have had an iron curtain between Nazism and Communism. Any rational assessment would conclude that a post-war Europe divided between Freedom and Communism is preferable to one divided between Nazism and Communism

[Aidan Kehoe]

Any rational assessment would conclude that a post-war Europe divided between Freedom and Communism is preferable to one divided between Nazism and Communism

Yes. Our declaring war on the side of the Allies couldn't have ensured the former, though; our most useful wartime resource had signed up for the British Army anyway.

Oh, and do you seriously think Switzerland could have withstood a German invasion? Sure, the country was well-armed and mountainous, but I think the feeling of "why bother" was the stronger motivation. It's more than likely that would have been our position in the event of Britain and NI surrendering.

[Frank McGahon]

If you read my post, I am making the case that DeValera's "neutrality" was the rational, realist position to take. The important point to remember, though, was that this was an amoral compromise given the circumstances and not some high-minded principle.

[Keith Stanton]

Does anyone know of any Irish trad songs that may deal Ireland's neutrality? I am especially interested in any songs from the 50s or 60s dealing with Eire's neutrality during WWII.