Home and Away: The Domestic and External Irish response to the Jewish refugee situation in Europe

This paper will focus on two distinctively contrasting philosophies regarding the Jewish refugee crisis during the second world war. These separate philosophies have differing roots, one deriving from domestic politics and the other from European politics. The domestic and external Irish response to the exodus of Jews fleeing from their homes displays an extremely interesting contradiction. This essay first sets out to discuss Ireland’s neutrality and her place in Europe. This, in turn, could be said to have affected the political agenda of the Irish government and general consensus on allowing European Jews to enter the country. Relationships between political figures also portray a multitude of themes at work within the administration, particularly concerning antisemitism and improving Ireland’s place in Europe. One could argue that the policy of industrial protectionism was also a significant element in conjuring up anti-Jewish feeling. The next part of the paper focuses on the external Irish viewpoint, which is personified through three remarkable Irish philanthropic figures, active in saving victims of conflict during the 1940s. The two Irish figures that I wish to focus on are namely, Mary Elmes and Hubert Butler. Both were educated and had lived outside Ireland for a time, yet maintained strong links to the Irish nation and different political and perhaps religious motivations.

In comparing the different attitudes of Irish at home and abroad, I hope to provide a layered piece of work that portrays the different facets of Irish society in regarding the European ‘other’ and in viewing Ireland herself within Europe.

The sources found during this research process contained abundant information on the State’s attitude to the admission of Jewish or ‘alien’ immigrants. One source found in the National Archives contained governmental correspondence on the prospect of German Jewish manufacturers settling in Ireland as early as 1936. It was made clear in one letter to the Secretary of the Department of External affairs that it was desirable for all potential immigrants to be accomplished in their trade and comply with the Irish Manufacturers Act 1932 and 1934.1 It was then decided in a later correspondence that each individual would be accepted only on the basis of their own personal and professional merits.2 From this, one might deduce that the Irish government’s policy of protectionism came first in this case, despite the previous mention of Britain and Holland employing these manufacturers, who in turn, employed thousands of British and Dutch workers.3 Ireland’s political status in Europe was not yet believed to be so precarious, however as time moved on, one can see that the country made great efforts to infiltrate itself with the rest of the world. Gianna Hegarty’s thesis, The development of Irish refugee policy through the prism of the state's foreign policy objectives, 1935 - 1973, makes the point that Ireland wished to facilitate a refugee policy in order to engage with international politics.

The government intended to respond western appeals for support but could also remain relatively restrictive in their admittance policy.4 Ireland participated in the Evian Conference of 1938 and engaged in talks about training refugees in agriculture and industry but also contained a file about how Mexico intended to deal with incoming refugees. The country was not prepared to assume financial responsibility for these immigrants, quite like the approach Ireland took.5 Hegarty asserted how Ireland was to be a ‘clearing station’ for any incoming persons and would prioritise applications that displayed plans to move on to other destinations.6 What may further proves the point of the Irish government participating in refugee aid to interact with world politics is the fact that Irish neutrality left a bitter taste in the mouth of the Allies, namely Britain and America. Anxiety was heightened due to Britain’s lack of reassurance of an imminent invasion alongside the US’s accusation that Ireland was harbouring German spies in the early 1940s. Both Britain and America also intended to work together to apply pressure on Ireland to relinquish the treaty ports due to Allied shipping losses.7 Evidently, a willingness to portray Ireland as a cooperative nation was foremost in the minds of government leaders. What also seemed to have been a pressing matter was not only cooperating with international affairs but elevating Irish issues to prominence on the world stage.

However, judging by the documentation that was uncovered during the development of this analysis, these political aims seemed to clash with what seems to have been a fairly substantial amount of anti-semitism. European political anti-semitism penetrated the Irish Dáil during the mid 1930s. Kevin McCarthy’s piece on the relationship between Eamonn De Valera and Robert Briscoe mainly argues that De Valera wanted to use the latter’s contacts in the New Zionist Organisation to bring Ireland’s partition question to the fore of global politics. When the Francois Coty attacked Briscoe in an anti-semitic campaign in his French newspaper, L’Ami du People, Cumann na nGaedhal exploited this opportunity to accuse Fianna Fáil of maintaining Jewish-communist links after their loss in the 1932 election.8 It was not long before doubt and resentment began to seep into the sphere of the Fianna Fáil, with fellow colleagues attributing Briscoe with the responsibility of the party’s failings. McCarthy also presented a very interesting letter in his work that had been addressed to Briscoe telling him to disengage with the party and the ministers. 9

‘The Fianna Fail party is too well able to look after its own affairs without having blocks of the ‘Laurel and Hardy’ type messing up things for it. I suppose you are after a ‘job’. People of your ilk always are, particularly when they rush into help ministers and Bishops —the snail helping the lion with its ‘great big horne’.

The fact that anti-semitism was used as an agent of intimidation displays the Irish political attitude to Jews in this case.

During the mid to late 1930s there was some concern expressed about Jewish monopoly of industry and trade.11 Alongside this, it could be argued that there had been a substantial enough amount of anti-semitism in the media, to the point that it was commented upon in state documents. The National Archives had presented a file that was compiled predominantly of newspaper clippings, promoting anti-Jewish messages. Articles in the Irish Times that had been published throughout 1939 displayed information about ‘The Irish-Ireland Research Society’, that reportedly bore ‘...the Jews no ill-will as a whole...’, but did not wish to enable, ‘...the Jewish hold on Irish economic life to develop...’12 Another article provided information on a lecture given by a Mr. Herman Good on ‘The Jewish Question.’13 Interestingly enough, Good seemed to link Irish partition to that of Palestine’s, similar to what De Valera was trying to achieve through Robert Briscoe.

‘Mr. Good dealt with the what he called “the fallacy of Jewish wealth and power,” and observed:-

“So powerful are we that we cannot get our own small country for our own.” He believed that if there was to be any solution to the problem of the Jew and anti-semitism it was to be found in Palestine.’

Sinister as these discoveries may seem, the article in the German Volkischer Beobachter is even more so with its comments on Irish anti-semitism.

This extract from the German article discusses how Irish anti-semitism is prevalent but young. According to this piece, the Jewish community enmeshed themselves in Irish politics and industry, the latter theme being a prominent one amongst the Irish State papers. A report sent to Erskine Childers from J.J Callan in 1943 contains information on what Irish newspapers were writing during this period and the general opinion of the Irish regarding their Jewish counterparts. Headlines like ‘TOO MANY ALIENS IN INDUSTRY’, were prevalent. Many businessmen were vexed and annoyed at the Jewish ownership of properties from ‘the end of Grafton street to the Parnell Monument.’ There were also complaints of tariffs being placed on the importation of goods that Irish nationals had previously been exempt from paying. However now, according to the report, Jewish manufacturers were making a profit from these tariffs, such was the case with Irish Milanese Ltd that was mentioned in this account.

Accusations of Jewish shop owners having made it a condition for customers to buy a product at a price set by them, regardless of whether such a product was needed, was also mentioned. It is evident that despite a desire for Ireland to participate in contemporary European and international politics, there were strong reservations about the Jewish community as a whole and their engagement with Irish life. One can see a significant amount of anti-semitism within Irish politics, industry and media. However, this displays only one facet of the Irish attitude to refugees. Another important element to consider when evaluating Irish response to the Jewish refugee crisis is the reaction of the Irish abroad.

When looking at Irish philanthropic figures who were active in the lead up to and during the second world war, it is important to consider their education, their background with what exactly they identified themselves with. All of these factors could be considered as having a notable impact upon their personal philosophies. In order to highlight the contradiction between Irish domestic attitudes and responses to Jewish immigration and external Irish reactions to Jewish persecution, one needs to be able to explain why the two philosophies are so different despite common heritage. One could argue that due to the fact these individuals were living in war-torn Europe at the time it enabled them to see the damage done to countless families and livelihoods. However, this is not such a convincing argument as Irish persons, such as Charles Bewley had travelled to Europe and had still not expressed sympathy for the Jewish community.

In a letter to Joseph P. Walshe, Bewley discussed the anti-semitic regime in Germany and declared, ‘... Anyone who witnessed the immigration into Ireland of English Jews after the introduction of conscription in England will feel inclined to adopt the German view.’ So what exactly influenced these other Irish individuals?

Explaining the significance of the notable Irish essayist Hubert Butler, famous for drawing parallels between Irish society and other societies, particularly that of Yugoslavia, may, in fact, be a good place to start. Butler was given an English boarding school education and hailed from an Anglo-Irish Protestant background. What is most interesting about him was the fact that he identified himself strongly with nationalism and republicanism. However, dissimilarly to the nationalistic approach of the Irish government with regard to the jealous protection of industries and political control, Butler believed that as a nationalist he could empathise with other nationalistic countries. According to his belief, Ireland being one of the secession states to emerge from the first world war, could lead the way in supporting other nations like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Hubert travelled around Eastern Europe, staying in Yugoslavia from 1934 to 1937 and then moving on to Vienna where he worked with a group of American Quakers, enabling Jewish families to leave Austria. The director of the film, Hubert Butler: Witness to the Future Johnny Grogan, asserted that Butler, along with the help of his wife Peggy, succeeded in relocating over one hundred Jews in Ireland when Ireland was effectively ‘shutting its door to the Jewish people.

It was believed that this was achieved through smuggling families from London over the Northern Irish border into the Irish Free State. This example of an external Irish attitude, one could say, is quite an impressive one. Not only did this individual identify himself as strongly nationalist but also engaged in an almost Neo-nationalism that encapsulated the rights of all nationalist countries across Europe. Hubert Butler’s mental look was expansive and ahead of his time and despite being an Irish person with a sense of Irish patriotism, he did not share Ireland’s insular attitude to European ‘aliens.’ This attitude is portrayed in how the state dealt with applications requesting permission for temporary residency in Ireland. When Muriel Bennington Cooper contacted the Department of External Affairs from Belgium on behalf of Jewish friends hoping to gain residency in Ireland, multiple letters were exchanged between departments on the complicated nature of a successful application.

‘Applications by persons who wish to enter this country should be sent to the Department of Justice. Forms of application for a Certificate of Naturalisation are only issued to prospective applicants. As the persons in whom Mrs. Bennington Cooper is interested in are not resident in this country they would not be entitled to apply..’

Werner Cahnmann’s application on behalf of his parents and two sisters had failed even after specifying the £200 would be made available for them to support themselves during their stay.

The same result occurred after twin brothers Ulrich and Rudolf Heymann desperately petitioned for their parents to be allowed entry before they would inevitably be sent to Poland where they would never ‘expect to see them again.’

It could be said that this proves the contradiction between domestic and external Irish attitudes. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of work to be found on Butler’s humanitarian efforts and hardly any monographs to testify to his achievements. Even the film made in his honour in 2016, eluded the endeavours of this research.

Another remarkable Irish person involved in saving Jewish lives during the Holocaust was the Cork-born Mary Elmes. Little enough is known of Mary, even by her own family, with research on her accomplishments having only been published as late as last year and earlier this year. Born in 1908, her family had well-to-do Church of Ireland roots. Her mother had been a suffragette and her father was a pharmacist in her maternal family’s pharmacy. Mary was also a Trinity scholar and achieved a 1.1 degree in modern languages, before which she had lived in France for a year after leaving school in 1925. She then travelled to study in the London school of economics. She was also the treasurer of the Munster Women’s Franchise League. Her education and upbringing portray a woman who may not have harboured such parochial beliefs about other cultures as many Irish did at this time.

After completing some aid work in Spain during the civil war, she, like Butler, worked with a group of Quakers in Perpignan at the beginning of the second world war. The fact that Mary was a member of the Church of Ireland may also have attracted her to philanthropic work with female sections existing in major Anglican missionary societies like the Hibernian Church Missionary Society.

Mary worked in Rivesaltes camp with the Quaker group. The Quakers had arranged a deal with the United States to accept five convoys of refugee children from the camp with Mary providing names for the fourth convoy. During the war years over a thousand children had been sent to America from these camps. She also founded colonies that would take in camp children, mainly of Spanish and Jewish heritage, to provide them with a break from the lives they led. When the order for Jews to be deported to extermination camps was decreed, Mary managed to smuggle Jewish children in her car while entering in and out of Rivesaltes beginning on the tenth of August 1942. She saved nine children in the first convoy that was initially bound to Auschwitz and a total of 174 children between August and October of 1942. According to some sources she brought three to seven children to one of the Quaker colonies every two weeks.

Mary was awarded the title ‘Righteous Among the Nations’, for her role in saving the lives of brothers Michael and Ronald Friend, the latter nominating her to for the honour. She is now the only Irish person to bear the title.29

In the period between 1936 and 1942, as examined in this paper, many contradictions existed in the Irish reactions to the Jewish refugee crisis. The mid to late thirties saw marked anti-semitism in both politics and everyday life. The agenda of protectionism clashed with the intention to enmesh Ireland with international affairs and to recreate friendships after neutrality, according to Gianna Hegarty’s piece. However, new publications and works having emerged within the last two years have proven that not all Irish were of the same opinion. Hubert Butler, an esteemed Irish essayist, harboured distinctly different political ideas on nationality than the Irish government. Nationality was a means for interdependence and connection rather than a jealous protective policy on Ireland’s society and trade. His involvement with the Quakers and work in managing to smuggle Jewish families into Ireland was a blatant disregard of Irish State policy and a display on his own beliefs, having spent a considerable amount of time in Eastern Europe in the 1930s. Mary Elmes, a Trinity Scholar and very well educated individual, also spent the latter half of the thirties and early forties working to establish Quaker colonies outside Rivesaltes camp. She also took part in sending convoys to America from the camp saving countless Jewish lives. This display of humanity portrays how small Irish domestic concerns were in the grand scheme of what was happening during the Holocaust.

These remarkable individuals also did what the Irish government was finding difficult and that was truly enmeshing themselves with European politics through their own moral compass and education. The aim of this essay was to highlight the contrast between state policy and the independent political alignment of its subjects.