Memorandum by Frederick H. Boland for Éamon de Valera (Dublin) with covering note from Boland to Kathleen O'Connell (Dublin)
(Immediate)

Dear Miss O'Connell,
This is the note for the Taoiseach which I mentioned to you on the 'phone this morning. I have just learned that all the men were, in fact, released two days ago.

[enclosure]
Taoiseach, Minister for External Affairs,

1. A list of the German 'agents' who were detained at Athlone is attached hereto.
2. After the termination of the war in Europe, we received official representations from the British, American and French Governments asking that these men, as well as the military internees and the staff of the former German Legation, should be returned to Germany. The military internees were repatriated on the conditions-
   1. that they would not be treated as prisoners of war;
   2. that they would be sent direct to Germany; and
   3. that they would not be forced to go to the Russian-occupied zone against their will.

   With some slight delay in transit in Belgium, these conditions were faithfully carried out. We declined to comply with the Allied request as regards the staff of the former German Legation and as regards these men in Athlone, we replied that -

   'It is intended to keep them under detention until such time as, after consultation between the two Governments, it is agreed that they are no longer a menace to the security of either country and can, therefore, safely be restored to liberty.'

   On the strength of this statement, the Allied representatives ceased for a while to press us, either as regards these men or the staff of the former German Legation. We are the only neutral country which has not repatriated people within these categories to Germany.

3. Some months ago, the Allied representatives began to return to the question of the repatriation of these people. Mr. Gray raised it after his return from Washington. The British raised it in connection with Marschner's application for repatriation to Germany which we referred to them. These renewed requests related, not merely to the detainees at Athlone, but also to the staff of the former German Legation. Distinguishing between the two categories, and maintaining, as regards the latter, the attitude that we were not prepared to compel them to return to Germany under any circumstances, we enquired - in consequence of enquiries made by certain of the detainees themselves - what guarantees would be available if the men detained at Athlone were to be repatriated.
4. A written communication was received from the British on this subject in September. It emerges from this that -
   • the German agents would be sent direct from this country to Germany, and
   • that there is no question of any of them being sent to the Russian zone against their will.

   Furthermore, the British stated that the men would be treated in exactly the same way as German nationals repatriated from other neutral countries and that, so far as was known, 'there were no charges pending against them likely to lead to capital sentences'. This last provision was regarded as rather unsatisfactory and was discussed with Sir John Maffey. It emerged from that discussion that the Allied Control Council rather resent being asked for guarantees in respect of these men and that that fact has to be taken into account in considering the terms of the British communication. Sir John Maffey stated, however, that, so far as he had been able to ascertain, the position was that, unless, of course, the men concerned were criminals with ordinary common law charges against them, the most they would be subjected to is a process of temporary detention for 'screening' - a procedure which all Germans repatriated from abroad and all former members of the National Socialist Party have to undergo. There was no question of the men being tried for their action in landing for espionage purposes in this country. No doubt, the British can be got to go on paper to this effect, if it is necessary.

5. The British feel that our action in releasing these men on parole without consultation with them was contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the statement of intention which we gave them last year.¹ They were particularly chagrined when one of the detainees called at Sir John Maffey's Office to discuss the question of his repatriation. They have, therefore, returned strongly to the question of the repatriation of these men, and the question now arises whether they could not now be properly repatriated.
6. In the view of this Department, there is no good reason why these men should be granted asylum in this country. They are not in danger of death or imprisonment for political offences. At least two of them are professional spies, and at least three others are definitely undesirable characters. We owe these men nothing. At a moment of the war when our security was in immediate jeopardy, they came here with the intention of using our territory for purposes likely to embroil² us in the war. They came here in total disregard of the Government's declared policy that they would not allow this country to be used as a base for attack by one belligerent against another. Some of them, at least, interfered in our internal politics and associated with those endeavouring to overthrow the State by force.
7. To regard these men, on humanitarian grounds, as having a fair claim to be allowed stay in this country would be both illogical and likely to involve us in worse embarrassments. We repatriated the military internees who had a far better claim to our consideration, inasmuch as they were not illegal entrants and came here accidentally in the sense that they did not set out with the deliberate purpose of entering this country. We repatriated the German prisoners of war who escaped from France who landed in Cork. They had even a better claim because they did not come here during the war at all and were actually escaping from confinement. With these precedents behind us, to regard a group of professional spies as entitled to stay in this country would be to place ourselves in a position which we could not defend on logical grounds. Furthermore, such an attitude would be liable to re-open in an aggravated form the question of the continued stay in this country of the members of the staff of the former German Legation. With, perhaps, one exception (that of the Press Attaché, Peterson³ who, however, is married to an Irish girl), they have a sound claim to our consideration inasmuch as they behaved correctly during the war and, according to all indications, opposed German activities likely to endanger our neutrality. Sir John Maffey has stated plainly that it was only the written statement of intention which we gave him last year which enabled him to dissuade the Americans from pressing us about the repatriation, not only of the detainees at Athlone, but of Herr Hempel and his former colleagues.
8. At least two of the detainees are married. Several of the internees who were repatriated last year were married to Irish wives, but they were repatriated none the less. If any of the detainees were considered too ill to travel, that, it is thought, would be a sound reason for allowing them to stay here until they are well. On the whole, however, it seems to us that the natural, reasonable and most dignified course is that these men should be repatriated immediately, once it is clear that their repatriation does not expose them to death or imprisonment in respect of their espionage activities during the war. If the repatriation is effected quickly and efficiently there need be no more public discussion or misgiving than there was about the repatriation of the escaped German prisoners of war who landed in Kinsale.⁴