50 Years Ago

ENGLAND’S DIFFICULTY IRELAND’S OPPORTUNITY

THE March 1951 issue of An tÉireannach Aontaithe/The United Irishman carried a trenchant editorial in which it answered official Dutch excuses for their Air Force’s presence in Derry at the invitation of the British government.

A spokesperson for the Dutch, a Dr Klompe wrote to a Mr Finan (possibly an Anti-Partition official) saying that a refusal of the British invitation would have meant taking the Irish side “in the conflict between your country and England” which would have done “great harm to your case and to European co-operation as a whole”.

The editorial replied that the Netherlands government took “a definitely invidious position in the conflict . . . by invading our land with your armed forces in defiance of the strong protest of every section of the Irish people”. Had the Dutch refused it would have “done NOT harm but great good to our ‘case’ and to your Honour as a Government.

“It would have shown England and the world that you stood by the PROFESSED principles of the United Nations and refused to commit an Act of Aggression on Ireland that has always been a friend to the Dutch.”

The letter went on to say that in sending the Air Force unit “we do not express any opinion in this conflict; we are only the guests of the British government”.

“In our view,” the editorial answered, “you express the most forcible opinion you could possibly express, by your aggression on our soil, by occupying with England our northern counties, which you know are held by England by sheer force of her superior military arms.”

“You cannot possibly plead ignorance of the fact that this is our land, and that in entering it you have taken England’s side in the fight for our robbed territory.”

The letter again: “I do appeal to you not to draw my country into this delicate situation, as you must be convinced that the Dutch people have no intention at all to hurt their good Irish friends.

“I express the hope that you will appreciate the fact that my Government is not guilty in this respect and that we could not act otherwise.” It went on: “My party and I have done what we could, but we must back our Government . . .”

The editorial hits back: “We understand, very thoroughly, the hypocrisy of your attitude . . . we have not drawn you into the conflict . . . but you have entered it, deliberately, despite the most vigorous protest from the people of Ireland.

“We quite agree that the Dutch people, as the Irish people or English people, or American people, by which we mean the ordinary men and women of these countries, living their daily lives amidst the great difficulties of the conditions brought on them by their governments, that never consult them as to whether they wish to go out and slaughter and be slaughtered by their fellow-men, — we agree that these helpless people are not responsible for the things done in their name, BUT the Dutch government is DEFINITELY MOST GUILTY of an outrageous Act of Aggression in Ireland . . .

“It should have felt itself bound in honour and principle to act otherwise. Your party and you have not done what you could. It should have refused to back your government in their aggression.”

The editorial concluded: “By backing your government you have TAKEN SIDES IN THE IRISH-BRITISH CONFLICT. You have taken the side of Aggression. You have aroused resentment and enmity between our country and yours.”

Nothing could have been clearer. Hypocrisy was answered boldly in plain words. A letter to the Editor carried in the same issue of the Organ of Irish Republicanism referred to an Anti-Partition meeting held in Dublin’s Mansion House “to protest against Dutch forces landing in Ireland”.

A speaker on that occasion condemned “any party who used force to end Partition. The same speaker called Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone and Kevin Barry “fools or madmen”. Ninety per cent of the audience protested at this “insult to the memory of those who gave their lives for Irish freedom”, the letter-writer stated.

Another letter, dated January 21, 1951was sent by the Standing Committee of Sinn Féin to all Public Bodies (local authorities) in Ireland, “in view of England’s inviting foreign armies to Irish soil”.

It asked each local council to demand the breaking off of all relations – political and economic – with England and any of her allies who assist her.

It also asked for a declaration that the “Partition Question” was not the issue. Rather was it the removal of British troops and British influence from Ireland and the breaking of the connection with England.

Further the letter requested that councils repudiate the suggestion that if the Border were removed, Ireland would join NATO and fight the wars of England or any other country.

The people of Ireland had never given mandate or authority to anyone to make such a bargain. Such a situation would lead to Ireland “becoming a shambles in a war between the Aggressors of the East and West.

Sinn Féin reminded the Public Bodies of the honourable stand they took when they repudiated the British in 1920, publicly withdrew their allegiance from Dublin Castle and pledged themselves to the Government established by the All-Ireland Dáil on January 21, 1919.

This spirited circular letter was signed by Antoine Mag Cana and Seán Ó Cearnaigh, Ard-Rúnaithe.

Indeed the headline on the front page of that March 1951 issue was “War Clouds”, indicating the possible outbreak of WWIII.

The news article underneath listed “feverish diplomatic activity; huge rearmament budgets, former enemies being wooed for support; defeated nations being appeased and strengthened.

All of these being combined with significant movements of troops, showed that the “uneasy peace of the past few years” could not last much longer.

The two world wars were fought between governments who had promised liberty, freedom and plenty to the world while the war was on. When it was over the victors proceeded to tyrannise over the smaller nations whose very existence might, economically or otherwise, interfere with their designs of wealth and world conquest.

The article went on to describe how propaganda can force millions to discard their powers of reason. In WWI it was Catholic Belgium was being fought for, in WWII it was Poland and in WWIII it would be the defence of Christianity.

It was the propaganda slogan of “Christianity versus Communism” that was intended to bring Ireland into the war which appeared to be coming — on the side of “Christian” England and America.

In WWII the Soviet Union had attained her position of power and eminence with the help of England and America. They had with the Cold War closed their eyes to the fact that the only change WWII made to Poland was the substitution of a Russian over lordship for that of a German.

In 1951 with Russian intrigue having proved itself superior to that of England we were told that Communism must be destroyed, as if Communism were not equally reprehensible when the Big Three (Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt) met at Yalta in February 1945.

However, at Yalta they were busy marking out their post-war spheres of influence once Germany had been defeated.

A proper government in Ireland would easily overcome this stupid but persistent propaganda – not by suppressing the truth but by giving the whole truth. Sadly, political leaders on both sides of the Border seemed to agree that the Irish must go to war on England’s side.

“In this way they are probably more honest than those who boasted a neutrality in the last war and in the most sneaky manner imaginable co-operated in every way with England,” the writer observed.

Spokespersons for all political parties had urged that “we cannot be neutral” and well-meaning Anti-Partition supporters were taken aback when Brigadier O’Gowan – a leader and spokesperson – had advocated an Irish Brigade to fight on England’s side.

When war came, not alone would thousands of Irishmen, for one reason or another, be forced to join the English army, but both administrations in Belfast and Dublin would be officially on England’s side.

Given such a situation, Republicans should strive by every means to stem this thoughtless, headlong rush to support an infernal but now crumbling Empire. It should be pointed out that as long as England seeks by force and intimidation to impose her will on Ireland we must ever see in ENGLAND’S DIFFICULTY IRELAND’S OPPORTUNITY.

Furthermore it should be stressed that the one occasion when most people will agree that war is justified is when a hostile army invades another country.

“If those who advocate going to war on England’s side to prevent aggression are to be in any way logical, they should first of all advocate a war to stop English aggression in Ireland,” the article concludes.

References at the beginning of that piece to “former enemies being wooed for support” and “defeated nations being appeased and strengthened” cover the reconstruction of Germany after 1945 in order to make it a bulwark against the new enemy and former ally, Soviet Russia.Not alone was the Polish capital Warsaw which was destroyed by German forces rebuilt carefully, stone upon stone, but the German city of Nuremberg was “meticulously reconstructed from the actual architect’s plans of the original town, [which had been] reduced with its cobbled streets and timbered houses to ashes and rubble by the Allied bombs of 1943” (The Odessa File).

As late as 1995, the commemorations in places like Dresden of the 50th anniversary of its destruction by British and US bombers on February 13, 1945 caused tension in Germany’s relationship with Britain.

Dresden was “ a severe case of over-bombing”. The firestorm bombardment used there and in Hamburg draws a person in – people’s remains were shrunk to tiny little figures. The 100,000 who died in Dresden were disposed of by mass funeral pyres in the streets.

The city was “another monument to total war” as practised by the Allies. The Irish Times of January 7, 1995 stated that “the bombing came during the final weeks of the war and most experts now agree that it served no useful military purpose.

“The anger and bitterness surrounding the destruction of the city once known as the Florence of the Elbe rose to the surface two years ago (1993) when Queen Elizabeth [of England] was booed as she passed the ruins of the Frauenekirche. One 70-year-old man carried a sign which read ‘Royal Air Force – war criminals’.”

(Note: The ruined stump of the famous Frauenkirche or Women’s Church has been preserved among all the reconstruction as a reminder of that awful night in February 1945 when the city was levelled and 100,000 people shrivelled up into figurines before being reduced to ashes.)

Elsewhere in the March 1951 issue is a letter from Eithne Nic Shuibhne, surviving sister of Terence Mac Swiney, Lord Mayor of Cork who died on hunger strike in 1920. Her letter had been send to the Sunday Independent but was refused publication.

Dated February 1, 1951 it came from her home at 4 Belgrave Place, Cork, and challenged the “Indo” to publish, saying that it boasted that its wide circulation was due to the fact that “your paper is ready to voice the opinions of all its readers, irrespective of your own views”.

Eithne traced the origins and history of the puppet parliament at Stormont from 1920 and then attacked the proposal to join NATO if “the Border were removed”.

When English forces, power and influence leave Ireland, she said, we shall decide for ourselves with whom we shall ally ourselves and to what extent, if we decide to have an alliance at all.

“But in the present struggle for power between East and West Aggressors, our plain duty to our country is to be strictly neutral. Atheism is anathema to us; so also is Hypocrisy, the fruitful breeding ground of Atheism,” Eithne Nic Shuibhne concluded. (Atheistic Communism was the propaganda slogan used at that time.)

Miss Mac Swiney was adamant in all her letters at this time that there should be “no selling out of our youth to the European battlefields in return for our freedom, nor are we going to have our land turned into a shambles for either side.”

Also Margaret Buckley, former President of Sinn Féin (1937-1950) began a series of articles under the nom-de-plume “Margaret Lee”. The first dealt with the folklore of “Quaint Easter Customs”.

An interesting quotation from the English Morning Post in December 1919 is carried: “The Sinn Féin frame of mind is as open as a book to anyone who can read.

“The leaders are absolutely uncompromising. In a sense this is the most honest movement of the kind the country has experienced. It says what it means, and sticks to it.”

Republican Sinn Féin aspires to live up to the standard set over 80 years ago. But what of those who have stolen the historic name of Sinn Féin to which they are not entitled? That name never belonged in Stormont or Leinster House and soon too we may see it in Westminster itself.

(More next week. Refs. An tÉireannach Aontaithe/The United Irishman, March 1951; The Odessa File, by Frederick Forsyth, published Hutchinson 1972 and the Irish Times, January 7, 1995.)
Contents

Web layout by SAOIRSE -- Irish Freedom March 6, 2001 Send links, events notifications, articles, comments etc, to the editor at: saoirse@iol.ie marked "attention web-editor".