Should Irish Army WW2 Deserters (to join B.A.) be pardoned ?

I think there are some people who disgrace the uniform.

I'm sorry I took part in this thread.

I'm not sorry to have worn the uniform.

I think it brings dishonour to us ALL, back over 300 years, let alone a few decades, to have had to listen to some of the posts in this thread.

May all those who served, fought and died for the Irish Cause be blessed, and all those others forgiven.

The Brotherhood is eternal.

Less of the handbags please gents.

Just a thought lads and ladies, we've already pardoned and even elected to various government's members of the IRA and murderers and bomb planters from the times of the troubles.

And some of ye are still carrying a can for the guy who joined up in 1940 wanting to fight and instead was sent cutting turf and paid less and was generally at a loose end in an Army that was itself little more than a collection of boy scout units [at the time].

Maoltuile wrote: »

And still, there's no end to it. Explain to me how you square this with your claimed eternal respect for the uniform?

To be fair, at the beginning of the emergency, the Irish army were woefully short on weaponry of any sort. Most of the Propaganda photos of the era show soldiers manning checkpoints with wooden mockup guns. There was no shortage of rifles, mostly Bolt Action Springfields left over from WW1, a few hundred machine guns, and the rest whatever the brits left after them when they went home in 1922. The Army at the start of the Emergency had good intentions, but little else.

goldie fish wrote: »

To be fair, at the beginning of the emergency, the Irish army were woefully short on weaponry of any sort. Most of the Propaganda photos of the era show soldiers manning checkpoints with wooden mockup guns. There was no shortage of rifles, mostly Bolt Action Springfields left over from WW1, a few hundred machine guns, and the rest whatever the brits left after them when they went home in 1922. The Army at the start of the Emergency had good intentions, but little else.

This is completely untrue.

As of March 1940, the Irish Army had over 42,000 Lee Enfield .303 rifles, the same weapon as was standard issue in the British Army of the time. It also had over 1,400 heavy and light machine guns.

The inventory linked to indicates that the Springfield rifles you mention weren't even delivered until later in 1940 and 1941, and were mainly issued to the LDF (predecessor to the FCA).

Morlar wrote: »

Those figures looked familiar, I am sure I have read them before but couldn't find where. They also had various bofors guns placed in an air defence ring around Dublin for example, mobile units in the Phoenix park, Howth and somewhere round kiliney hill.

And nowhere else. Remember, there was a country outside dublin back then also. I don't think my statement was inaccurate, given the link provided. Worth having a read of "Ireland during the emergency" for the true situation when ireland was at greatest risk, during the period after dunkirk, before the Battle of Britain.
There was a great series on TV in the 80s also "Caught in a free state" about the Nazi Spies who arrived in ireland with the intention of co-ordinating the efforts of the IRA against the free State Government to provide a Backdoor into Britain. Luckily most were rounded up due to good intel work and in some cases, Luck. Against an army that had taken over most of continental Europe in a matter of weeks, during 1940, it would have been unsuprising for a member of the Irish DF to see the writing on the wall regarding poor equipment, and instead take your chances fighting the foe in an army that was at least making an effort to fight back.

A handful of torpedo boats and armed trawlers would not stop a Kriegsmarine with Armoured Battle Cruisers
A squadron of fighters backed up by byplanes would not stop a Luftwaffe equipped with hundreds of modern bombers and state of the art fighters.
Bolt action large calibre rifles would not stop Panzer tanks.
The notion of Guerrilla warfare holding back the enemy may have worked for the Old enemy, eventually, but it had not worked for the Resistance forces of Central Europe, who paid a huge cost protecting their homland from the invader, with no success.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The facts are that both the British and the Germans gave serious consideration to invading Ireland and a significant factor in their final decisions not to was the deterrent effect that these men provided -

I suggest that this is a rose coloured glasses look back at history. Churchill planned to take the ports back, Hitler had a bombing plan for Cork Harbour.

It was more likely our 'neutrality' to BOTH sides that allowed refuelling and berthing and provision of tractor parts form Ford and we were more helpful as a 'neutral' state than hostile.

Dublin was bombed in August 1940 by 'stray' German bombers, it was thought locally that this was a warning to Dev that he was being TOO neutral to Britain.

gbee wrote: »

I suggest that this is a rose coloured glasses look back at history. Churchill planned to take the ports back, Hitler had a bombing plan for Cork Harbour.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here, but let's try this thought experiment.

We know, as you say, that the British had a plan to take the treaty ports back and if they had, that they would have become military targets for the Germans, resulting in Ireland becoming yet another WWII battlefield.

Let's assume that there was no army in Ireland at all in 1940 and that we would not have been able to resist in any way if the British had decided to take the ports back - that the Royal Navy could just have sailed back in, set up shop and carried on as though they never left in 1938. Do you really think the British wouldn't have done just that?

Morlar wrote: »

Why have we taken to describing a British invasion of Neutral Ireland as 'taking the treaty ports back' ?

That seems to be an intentionally misleading choice of words imo.

Well, it's not my intention to mislead anyone . . .

gizmo555 wrote: »

that the Royal Navy could just have sailed back in, set up shop and carried on as though they never left in 1938. Do you really think the British wouldn't have done just that?

It's all they'd have had to do. Realistically, the Irish Army could not retaliate as they'd be fighting both Britain and Germany.

Our only hope to prevent a German invasion would rely on Britain, assisting Britain, even the forceful reoccupation of the ports, would result in massive bombing raids.

The Irish Army would not be able to expel the British forces nor defend against the German forces.

In the end, for both antagonists, having a 'safe' place to hold up in was considered a benefit.

I][SIZE="1"]ps and as we know some ports, Bantry in particular were in fact used anyway, but that's still a secret[/SIZE][/I