Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

12357…10

Comments

  • #122
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    "Other people" did take Éire's stance, which you would know if you had actually read history rather than the Anglophile version of it.

    UK etc. did nothing when Austria and Czechoslovakia were invaded and annexed. Most European countries were neutral until invaded. US was neutral until it was itself attacked. USSR only went to war against the Nazis when attacked - etc.

    Deserting the military has to have consequences. Desertion in time of war when invasion was likely certainly needs to attract penalties as a deterrent - and in this case, the penalties applied clearly didn't come within a million miles of what the US, UK etc. imposed on their own deserters.

    so are you saying they deserved the harsh treatment they received from narrow minded paddies on their return to Ireland.


  • #123
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    No - they should NOT be Pardoned.
    Morlar wrote: »
    What evidence are you putting forward to justify your claim that britain could have invaded Neutral Ireland during WW2 and faced no opposition whatsoever ?

    What evidence do you have to suggest that the Irish Armed forced could have stopped an invasion by either or both Britain and Germany.

    The facts are thus: Churchill told Dev he was taking back the ports. Hitler told Dev he'd be bombed back to the stone age if Churchill got the ports back.

    Neither Churchill or Hitler considered the Irish Army any threat whatsoever. I must assume they knew something that you are now suggesting was a falsehood and the Irish Army could have defended against an invasion.

    I don't think I need 'evidence' as you put it. It's logic: As I said, the Irish Army would not resist as it would just make a bad situation worse, it's unlikely that Britain would not invade beyond the ports as there was nothing of value in most of Éire at the time.

    And finally, the Irish Army would have to try and defend itself from Hitler's wrath. I don't think one needs 'evidence' to realise that this scenario was not going to be the Irish Defence Forces finest hour.


  • #124
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    gbee wrote: »
    What evidence do you have to suggest that the Irish Armed forced could have stopped an invasion by either or both Britain and Germany.

    The facts are thus: Churchill told Dev he was taking back the ports. Hitler told Dev he'd bombed back to the stone age if Churchill got the ports back.

    Neither Churchill or Hitler considered the Irish Army any threat whatsoever. I must assume they knew something that you are now suggesting was a falsehood and the Irish Army could have defended against an invasion.

    I did not say the Irish Army could prevent an invasion.

    I said a british invasion would not have been un-opposed.

    You are presenting a theory that britain could magically invade Ireland and occuppy the treaty ports peacefully and nothing more.

    You would need to present something to back that up as being a realistic proposition.
    gbee wrote: »
    I don't think I need 'evidence' as you put it. It's logic:

    You are putting forward the theory, when asked for evidence you say that the theory is evidence enough of itself. It's not.
    gbee wrote: »
    As I said, the Irish Army would not resist as it would just make a bad situation worse, it's unlikely that Britain would not invade beyond the ports as there was nothing of value in most of Éire at the time.

    "The Irish Army would not resist an invasion from Britain as it would just make a bad situation worse? " Seriously ?

    If that was a correct then why have an army at all ? 'If anyone invades sure we will just make things worse by resisting, lads' That's not really worth commenting on.

    "It is unlikely britain would invade beyond the treaty ports - " Do you seriously think this would be logistically possible ? That would be one hell of an optimistic plan from Britain to expect that to be possible. For starters the IRA of the time would not have lay down for this even if magically the Irish people, the Republican govt. along with the entire Free State Army (including it's war of Independence veterans) would - which I highly doubt anyway. Southern unionnists within the population may well have peacefully accepted a British Army invasion, but that is another matter. You are aware that unopposed British violation of our soveirgnty and neutrality would amount to an Irish declaration of war on Germany (by way of voluntary military collusion with it's enemy) ?
    gbee wrote: »
    And finally, the Irish Army would have to try and defend itself from Hitler's wrath. I don't think one needs 'evidence' to realise that this scenario was not going to be the Irish Defence Forces finest hour.

    This seems based on the assumption that Ireland would aquiesce to a British invasion it would then join sides with the British army ?

    No one on this thread (to the best of my knowledge) has maintained that Ireland could militarily defeat either the British Army or German armed forces. No one. Can we try to stay with the facts here?


  • #125
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    No - they should NOT be Pardoned.
    Morlar wrote: »
    You would need to present something to back that up as being a realistic proposition.

    I have already. The short and curlies is Ireland was between a rock and a hard place, she was going to be crushed, it wouldn't have mattered if she fought against Britain or joined her in combat, she was in a tactical check mate.

    She'd need an army of 400,000, fully equipped with modern armour and a few thousand tanks and an Air Force of at least 3,000 fighting fit machines plus the services, the oil, coal, turf etc.


  • #126
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    gbee wrote: »
    I have already. The short and curlies is Ireland was between a rock and a hard place, she was going to be crushed, it wouldn't have mattered if she fought against Britain or joined her in combat, she was in a tactical check mate.

    She'd need an army of 400,000, fully equipped with modern armour and a few thousand tanks and an Air Force of at least 3,000 fighting fit machines plus the services, the oil, coal, turf etc.

    .
    Morlar wrote: »
    No one on this thread (to the best of my knowledge) has maintained that Ireland could militarily defeat either the British Army or German armed forces. No one. Can we try to stay with the facts here?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    so are you saying they deserved the harsh treatment they received from narrow minded paddies on their return to Ireland.

    What harsh treatment?


  • #128
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Other - Please explain.
    gbee wrote: »
    The facts are thus: Churchill told Dev he was taking back the ports. Hitler told Dev he'd be bombed back to the stone age if Churchill got the ports back.

    Have you a reference for either of these conversations de Valera is supposed to have had with these two gents?


  • #129
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Other - Please explain.
    Morlar wrote: »
    We are straying further and further from any kind of fact, or history based discussion here.

    What evidence are you putting forward to justify your claim that britain could have invaded Neutral Ireland during WW2 and faced no opposition whatsoever ?

    When the RD feared that the French Navy would fall into Nazi hands, following the fall of france, it had no hesitation in destroying most of the French navy, while the ships were tied up in port.(Mers el Kebir). In July 1940, French Algeria had not fallen to the Nazis, Vichy France had just declared its intention to Collaborate.
    Had the British Percieved a genuine risk from the former treaty ports, the RN would have had no issue retaking them. Indeed they had abandoned them partly because of their lack of defence from attack by aircraft.


  • #130
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    What harsh treatment?


    stripped of all pay and pension rights, and prevented from finding work by being banned for seven years from any employment paid for by state or government funds. is just the government stance. Ostracized by fellow fanatical countrymen and treated like traitors, by cowardly paddies that hid behind mummies skirts, writing poetry and trying to stand the high moral ground, kids of the so called traitors being subjected to unspeakably harsh treatment in homes. The so called leader of the Iorish at the time de Valera was a pig. As contemptible as Quisling sympathizing with Nazis scum as did many Irish of the day. If anyone should be holding their heads in shame, as the Iorish are always saying about the English, it is the Iorish themselves, disgraceful vindictive evil ****s


  • #131
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    goldie fish wrote: »
    Had the British Percieved a genuine risk from the former treaty ports, the RN would have had no issue retaking them.

    I see no reason to suspect that Britain could invade Neutral Ireland un-opposed.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    stripped of all pay and pension rights, and ... banned for seven years from any employment paid for by state or government funds.

    How does that compare to what would happen to an American or British soldier who deserted his national army ?


  • #133
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Morlar wrote: »
    How does that compare to what would happen to an American or British soldier who deserted his national army ?

    the topic of the thread is should ex ww2 paddy soldiers be pardoned, the above is for another discussion


  • #134
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    the topic of the thread is should ex ww2 paddy soldiers be pardoned, the above is for another discussion

    You are saying they were 'treated harshly' - I am asking you in comparison to what ?


  • #135
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Morlar wrote: »
    You are saying they were 'treated harshly' - I am asking you in comparison to what ?

    harsh treatment isn't a competition! will you not stand up and admit that the treatment of the paddy soldiers in ww2 when they returned was an absolute disgrace as was the general attitude of paddies


  • #136
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Other - Please explain.
    Morlar wrote: »
    I see no reason to suspect that Britain could invade Neutral Ireland un-opposed.

    How do you oppose a navy of battle ships, cruisers and destroyers, intending to retake a port that they left on good terms, less than 3 years earlier?
    Note: Their departure was a huge loss to local economies. Locals would have been glad to see their return.


  • #137
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    Other - Please explain.
    Let's play a game.

    It's called "The next person to continue dragging this thread off topic gets an infraction". The winner, suprisingly enough... Gets an infraction.

    This thread is about people who deserted the Army of this country during WW2 to join the BA. It's got nothing to do with imaginary invasions and how they'd pan out.

    Get back on topic.


  • #138
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    harsh treatment isn't a competition! will you not stand up and admit that the treatment of the paddy soldiers in ww2 when they returned was an absolute disgrace as was the general attitude of paddies

    The fact you insist on referring to those troops and indeed, the Irish population, as "Paddies", doesn't say much about your attitude, tbh.

    They signed up to serve the state, including swearing an oath, when WW2 kicked off. They were supposed to stand ready to defend this island and fulfill their oaths. Instead, they deserted this country during The Emergency, betrayed their oath and joined another Army.

    They weren't conscripted, they didn't join against their will, these were men who happily joined up and swore an oath to this country. The minute they deserted this country in it's time of need, I fail to see how they were treated harshly.

    I'm sure they carried out many a great deed while battling in Europe and they are to be commended for that. However, it still doesn't take away from the fact that they deserted this country and it's Army.


  • #139
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Poccington wrote: »
    The fact you insist on referring to those troops and indeed, the Irish population, as "Paddies", doesn't say much about your attitude, tbh.

    They signed up to serve the state, including swearing an oath, when WW2 kicked off. They were supposed to stand ready to defend this island and fulfill their oaths. Instead, they deserted this country during The Emergency, betrayed their oath and joined another Army.

    They weren't conscripted, they didn't join against their will, these were men who happily joined up and swore an oath to this country. The minute they deserted this country in it's time of need, I fail to see how they were treated harshly.

    I'm sure they carried out many a great deed while battling in Europe and they are to be commended for that. However, it still doesn't take away from the fact that they deserted this country and it's Army.

    Dear moderator - Ok I have read your comments and disagree entirely with everything you said. They did defend Ireland by joining the British army, will no one on this site including the so called moderators(moderators of what exactly? of anyone that doesn't go along with the irish bias) admit the treatment was deplorable. are you seriously and honestly and saying you do fail to see how the treatment was bad. are you in your right mind, because comments like that are driving me out of mine. I await your response, or will i get banned from this forum as well for not going along with the self serving Irish consensus.


  • #140
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    Dear moderator - Ok I have read your comments and disagree entirely with everything you said. They did defend Ireland by joining the British army, will no one on this site including the so called moderators(moderators of what exactly? of anyone that doesn't go along with the irish bias) admit the treatment was deplorable. are you seriously and honestly and saying you do fail to see how the treatment was bad. are you in your right mind, because comments like that are driving me out of mine. I await your response, or will i get banned from this forum as well for not going along with the self serving Irish consensus.

    Trolltrolltrolltroll.


  • #141
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    Trolltrolltrolltroll.

    disagreeing with another post and airing what i believe to be right is not trolling, do you have a reasonable addition to the debate or just childish comments


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    disagreeing with another post and airing what i believe to be right is not trolling, do you have a reasonable addition to the debate or just childish comments

    "paddy soldiers" "the general attitude of paddies" "moderators of what exactly? of anyone that doesn't go along with the irish bias" "will i get banned from this forum as well for not going along with the self serving Irish consensus"

    How exactly did you end up on this forum and this thread? You appear to have just arrived in the past few days - and in your other thread, you're distiguishing yourself just as much:

    "the topic is racists Ireland, of which I have some experience, and I know you and many others will find it hard to admit, but paddies are racists"


  • #143
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    "paddy soldiers" "the general attitude of paddies" "moderators of what exactly? of anyone that doesn't go along with the irish bias" "will i get banned from this forum as well for not going along with the self serving Irish consensus"

    How exactly did you end up on this forum and this thread? You appear to have just arrived in the past few days - and in your other thread, you're distiguishing yourself just as much:

    "the topic is racists Ireland, of which I have some experience, and I know you and many others will find it hard to admit, but paddies are racists"

    as moderators you seem to be continually asking people to stay on topic, I ask the same question as I previously asked. Do you have a reasonable answer to the debate of should ex soldiers be pardoned? or will you skate around. All of the above comments you have high lighted are in response to threads and posts of Irish people with short sited opinions and bias, I am untitled to my opinion as much as anyone else, you might not like it, but it is an opinion all the same, is boards.ie operating a censorship policy?


  • #144
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,200 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Other - Please explain.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    Poccington wrote: »
    The fact you insist on referring to those troops and indeed, the Irish population, as "Paddies", doesn't say much about your attitude, tbh.

    They signed up to serve the state, including swearing an oath, when WW2 kicked off. They were supposed to stand ready to defend this island and fulfill their oaths. Instead, they deserted this country during The Emergency, betrayed their oath and joined another Army.

    They weren't conscripted, they didn't join against their will, these were men who happily joined up and swore an oath to this country. The minute they deserted this country in it's time of need, I fail to see how they were treated harshly.

    I'm sure they carried out many a great deed while battling in Europe and they are to be commended for that. However, it still doesn't take away from the fact that they deserted this country and it's Army.

    Dear moderator - Ok I have read your comments and disagree entirely with everything you said. They did defend Ireland by joining the British army, will no one on this site including the so called moderators(moderators of what exactly? of anyone that doesn't go along with the irish bias) admit the treatment was deplorable. are you seriously and honestly and saying you do fail to see how the treatment was bad. are you in your right mind, because comments like that are driving me out of mine. I await your response, or will i get banned from this forum as well for not going along with the self serving Irish consensus.

    Usually moderators will make it clear when they are commenting with their moderator hat on, and when they are simply partaking in the discussion. The post you quote was his staying his own opinion, not using his moderator weight.

    As far as my opinion is concerned, I agree with his post entirely. The principles are correct, desertion is a serious offense, and the punishment was, if anything, a little light by the standards of volunteer militaries.

    NTM


  • #145
    truthspeaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭truthspeaker


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Usually moderators will make it clear when they are commenting with their moderator hat on, and when they are simply partaking in the discussion. The post you quote was his staying his own opinion, not using his moderator weight.

    As far as my opinion is concerned, I agree with his post entirely. The principles are correct, desertion is a serious offense, and the punishment was, if anything, a little light by the standards of volunteer militaries.

    NTM

    I think mr moderator is more than capable of defending his own comments, I don't need a lesson from you on what someone else is or is not doing. It amazes me that the bigger picture of defending the globe from Nazi's doesn't hold any weight what so ever. priorities change in times of extreme circumstance, and every man has the right to make a choice in what he believes to be right under extreme circumstances. Not pander to the idealistic and whimsical notions of deluded governments. what would you deem to be a fitting punishment


  • #146
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,200 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Other - Please explain.
    I think mr moderator is more than capable of defending his own comments, I don't need a lesson from you on what someone else is or is not doing.

    Perhaps not. However, there's no harm in making sure you know how this forum is run.
    It amazes me that the bigger picture of defending the globe from Nazi's doesn't hold any weight what so ever.

    It doesn't because it's irrelevant.

    I have an opinion on Ireland's neutral stance in WWII. I firmly believe the country should have thrown in its lot with the Allies against the Axis powers, and disagree with that governments decision not to. However, I fully support that government's authority to make that decision, and to carry it out. That is the fundamental essence of the sovereign state. To carry out its functions, it is dependant on its executive branch, which includes the Army, to be capable of carrying out its policies. That means that as long as the policies are legal, the individuals who make up that executive branch must be able to be relied upon, by force of law if necessary.

    When one joins the military, there are no caveats for personal morals or the opinion that something better should be done. When you raise your hand, you are placing yourself at the disposal of the government, to carry out the decisions of that government, and, by the way, subject yourself to military law. The term 'betray' is not misplaced, it is a betrayal of your word, and of the expectation of the taxpayer who the government represents.
    priorities change in times of extreme circumstance, and every man has the right to make a choice in what he believes to be right under extreme circumstances.

    This does not mean that the choice must be without consequence. The people in question made the choice toput themselves at the disposal of the Irish government, inherent in this is the possibility that the government may make a choice which you (often a voter) disagree with. That's the first consequence. The second consequence is the punitive cost of, basically, breaking your contract.
    what would you deem to be a fitting punishment

    Assuming a long-term AWOL:

    If not from turning themselves in, dishonorable discharge, a fine proportional to your training costs and time unserved, loss of benefits and in time of conflict, prison until the cessation of hostilities, lifetime bar from public employment.

    If in time of conflict and voluntarily surrendered, discharge would be other than honorable, the fine still paid, loss of benefits. Bar from certain public employment.

    If not in time of conflict, and voluntarily surrendered, Other than honorable and a smaller fine. Bar from uniformed employment. (Military, police, fire etc)

    NTM


  • #147
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    No - they should NOT be Pardoned.
    truthspeaker wrote: »
    harsh treatment isn't a competition! will you not stand up and admit that the treatment of the paddy soldiers in ww2 when they returned was an absolute disgrace as was the general attitude of paddies
    10s of thousands of american soldiers deserted and joined the canadian army,at the start of WW11 and did not face discrimination after it,but as far as irish army desertion is concerned,its more of a anti brit thing,that i can understand up to a point, but there are some with a sinn fein mind set who believes that no noble cause excuces desertion from a army,and those that left the neutral irish army to fight the axis powers got off lightly by being subjected to decades of discrimination,yet it is permissibly to kill irish soldiers and policemen,in the noble cause that sinn fein supported,


  • #148
    Naomi Stocky Warship
    Posts: 0 ✭ Naomi Stocky Warship


    Personally, if these men are to be pardoned, then it has to be asked for from the British Government.

    It has to be "These men came, some gave their lives, to us and our cause in our hour of need. We are eternally grateful for their sacrifice. Could you pardon them their transgression?"

    Then I would support it.

    Apart from thet, law is law is law is law.

    If they are deserters by law, they are deserters by law.


  • #149
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    No - they should NOT be Pardoned.
    Naomi Stocky Warship wrote: »
    Personally, if these men are to be pardoned, then it has to be asked for from the British Government.

    It has to be "These men came, some gave their lives, to us and our cause in our hour of need. We are eternally grateful for their sacrifice. Could you pardon them their transgression?"

    Then I would support it.

    Apart from thet, law is law is law is law.

    If they are deserters by law, they are deserters by law.
    i think the british would love to,but they cannot be seen to be telling ireland what they should do, can you imagine reaction.


  • #150
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Other - Please explain.
    getz wrote: »
    10s of thousands of american soldiers deserted and joined the canadian army,at the start of WW11 and did not face discrimination after it,but as far as irish army desertion is concerned,its more of a anti brit thing,that i can understand up to a point, but there are some with a sinn fein mind set who believes that no noble cause excuces desertion from a army,and those that left the neutral irish army to fight the axis powers got off lightly by being subjected to decades of discrimination,yet it is permissibly to kill irish soldiers and policemen,in the noble cause that sinn fein supported,

    The difference being, the US entered the war later on. Ireland did not.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    getsomenuts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭getsomenuts


    getz wrote: »
    i think the british would love to,but they cannot be seen to be telling ireland what they should do, can you imagine reaction.


    Who gives a **** what the reaction would be, Are you mad. Why the **** would the British government apologize for the actions of the Irish government? are you people suffering from some kind of delusional disease. Ireland should hold its head in shame for the way it has treated these men, get some nuts.


Advertisement