Dear Leo:
[matter omitted]
I had one of our friends from State to lunch on yesterday at my house with Hugh McCann, and we had a long talk over the table in regard to impending developments at home and the reaction of the people here to them. We were given to understand, in a very frank conversation, that the people here are anything but pleased with the development but propose to take no action in regard to it. Instead, they will await their opportunity to take it out on us otherwise, as and when opportunity occurs. In so far as the preference question is concerned, no claim will be made for preference by the people here lest it would embarrass the British and, in any case, having examined the various regulations and agreements on that particular question, they seem to be satisfied that they would not have a good case.
It is really extraordinary the amount of prejudice which exists against us. I do not think that they have ever forgiven us for our attitude during the late war, but they are not now considering the last war; they are contemplating the next one, and they seem to be quite sure that it will come eventually. For that reason, they are going to support the United Kingdom by every possible means, because they are the only people on whom they feel they can rely for a holding operation in Western Europe. They have no faith in the French nor in the Italians and have, therefore, put their trust completely in the United Kingdom. From that point of view, they are antagonistic towards any move by us which would upset the United Kingdom in any way and, in so far as Partition is concerned, they are not only unsympathetic but opposed now to the abolition of Partition. They fear that if Partition were abolished, they would not have the facilities available to them in our country which they would like and they are sure of such facilities now in the Six Counties. This is not a question of being pro-British. It is a question of what they consider American interests and American interests are governed entirely by strategic considerations at the present time, whatever lip service may be paid to the ideals of democracies and to high moral issues. Further, they regard the present Government as an unstable one and they feel even if it lasts five years, it would still be unstable - they have no guarantee that after another election the set-up would be the same. They dislike Dev and they are afraid that he may come back again. It is suggested that a new party, consisting of the younger elements of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael headed by Seán Lemass, might meet with their approval.
Discussing the question of Western Union, the statements made by our various Ministers, including Seán MacBride, as to our sympathy with the Western democracies, have been carefully noted but it was pointed out to us that there has as yet been no commitment by our people as to any definite alignment in the event of war. The religious question was touched on and the fact that a war against Russia would almost inevitably be a Holy War, the Church endorsing the Western democracies' fight. It was asked if, in such circumstances, we would not by virtue of our outstanding place in the Catholic world be, more or less, compelled to join in the fight against the forces of anti-Christ. Hugh McCann and I took diverging views on this so that it would not appear that we had any settled policy. I suggested that in such circumstances, whether we had Partition abolished or not, we might join the Western forces. McCann said there was no guarantee of that at all and that it was just as likely that we would maintain the attitude which we held during the last war. Considerable interest was expressed in these divergent viewpoints, and it was mentioned that they had hoped that with Mr. James Dillon in our Cabinet the Government would commit itself to the American point of view. Dillon, apparently, is thought of very highly in the circles which matter in the Department here. He was mentioned in our luncheon table conversation as being one of the men who did the thinking for Gray during his tenure of office, the other two being Lord Rugby and John Horgan of Cork.1 I do not know who the last-mentioned is. It was also mentioned that Dillon's proposal at some time, in regard to a common currency between the United States and the United Kingdom, had appealed rather to the people here and they had been keeping a very careful eye on him and rather hoped to see him when he arrives here for F.A.O. Incidentally, it was asked if it were not true that Seán MacBride was also coming out here to make speeches on Partition, in public. It was said that if he did, such action would be regarded with displeasure. That is the second time we have heard the rumour that Seán MacBride is coming out here. I do not know on what it is based, but these people are extremely well-informed. It was mentioned that we have no hope of ever changing the attitude of the Department towards our aspirations, unless we can reach the people at the very top. The person who handles our affairs is an able man, but his prejudice against us is now so deeply ingrained that we have no hope of altering his outlook and he declines to put himself in the position - such as accepting invitations, etc. - where he will even have to listen to our point of view. The people at the very top rely on him, and in the event of any question coming up he, naturally, is the person to 'brief' them.2
Some time ago, in connection with the Western Union plan and with the reports in the press concerning the standardization of arms in Western Europe, I mentioned to Miss Murphy in a letter that it had been suggested, in conversation with one of the people here, that we should have a Military Attaché stationed here. I got no reaction from the Department on that question, but I have reason to believe that through the Military Attaché in Dublin informal approaches were made to the Army on the subject. Yesterday, at luncheon, the question was put to us definitely. It was suggested that we should send a Military Attaché here. He would be welcomed and while he would not have much to do, possibly, he would be given the opportunity of meeting and knowing on familiar terms those who will be in command in the next war. I pointed out on that question that we had not a Military Attaché in London and that it would be difficult to justify sending one here, since British arms are now standardized with American arms and the same experience of arms can be acquired in Britain as is available here. Further, I was of the opinion that a good many of our Army officers had attended courses in Great Britain which were substantially like those held in the Staff Colleges here. The reply to this was that this was all very well, but we must remember that the British were doing as they were told by the U.S. and the U.S. people are the people who will be in command. It would be much more to our interest to have our people close to and familiar with the American Army than with the United Kingdom. Further, it was pointed out that in the Army today we have only two people, Colonel Collins-Powell3 and, I think, General Hugo McNeill4 who had been trained at Ft. Leavenworth. It was suggested that it was a pity that our people did not take advantage of the facilities which might be afforded to them here and send some officers out here for training as well as having an Attaché. Considerable emphasis was laid on this so that I am sure that the question has been thoroughly considered in the Department. It was mentioned, by the way, that a new Air Attaché was going to Ireland and that Colonel Kreps was being withdrawn.5
I think I have covered the salient points of the conversation.6 James Dillon arrives here on the 13th. If he could be 'primed' before departure to seeing the top layers of the people here, it might do a bit of good, since they think so much of him. That is about the only comment I have to offer. As for the Military Attaché, I am inclined to agree that it would do us good to have one here. He would have access to circles which we have not time to tap and, as he is not likely to be weighed down by too much office work, he could move around more freely than we ourselves can.
[matter omitted]
