Sir, – My father, the late Shaun Earls, served in the Irish Defence Forces from 1940 to 1946. I often spoke to him about those years and am in no doubt that his motive for enlisting was that, like many of his contemporaries, he wished to do his part to defend the independence which his country had secured with such difficulty a generation earlier. He obviously regarded this as a worthwhile task and later spoke of his time in the Army as one of the most interesting and satisfying periods in his life.
My father occasionally referred to fellow soldiers who had served with him, but at some point deserted to serve in the British armed forces. He spoke of such individuals without hostility or any particular respect. I would say he regarded them with a certain indulgence, as adventurers who were looking for more action than was available locally. He was a keen judge of men, and certainly had picked up no sense that they were animated by higher motives, such as the defence of democracy or the fight against fascism. There may have been such individuals, but in his recollection more down-to-earth motives prevailed.
There were several times during those years when my father and his fellow soldiers were put on invasion alert. During those dramatic hours, when the Army prepared to do battle, it was believed that invasion by Germany or Britain was imminent. If Britain had invaded, those who had deserted would have contributed by their action to an attempted overthrow of Irish sovereignty and might well have found themselves facing their former comrades in arms. Just how close that call was, and how little respect prime minister Churchill had for Irish independence, is suggested by his intemperate remarks at the time of the Allied victory in May 1945.
The dishonourable discharge of those who absconded from our Defence Forces to serve under the British flag is currently being considered by the Government. I have no views on this matter. I believe, however, that both prudence and self-respect suggest we should be careful about doing anything that might impugn the honour of those who stood by Ireland in its hour of need, who respected the undertakings they gave when they enlisted, and did not desert their comrades or their country. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Alan Shatter is not “reading history backwards”, as Tommy Graham suggests (January 27th). The “did-not-know” argument has been extensively applied, not least within Germany, but stands thoroughly refuted. For those who chose to see, the coming atrocities were obvious from 1938 onwards at the latest.
Many preferred to look the other way. Yes, the US did remain neutral for a time. But America is not a part of Europe. Sweden remained dishonourably neutral – and greatly profited economically. A case can be made for Irish neutrality – but not for the Irish treatment of Jewish refugees, or for de Valera’s notorious condolence visit to the German embassy, an act redolent of ignorance and brutal insensitivity.
Apropos the matter in hand: my suggestion is a double solution. No democracy can tolerate the anarchy of 5,000 men walking away from their solemnly sworn duty to the state and a (mostly) posthumous pardon would in any case be an act of empty gesturing. On the other hand, these men should be publicly honoured for their courage in defeating the tyranny which was a threat to us all.
The Minister is to be congratulated for initiating this wider debate on Ireland’s role in European history. All of the contributions to your paper so far have significantly enriched the discussion. – Yours, etc,