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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Irish Soldiers who deserted during WWII to join the British Army & Starvation order

135678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭A.Tomas


    Thank you for your diagnosis Doctor, I will get some cream for that next time I'm at the chemist:rolleyes:

    Tell me, I wonder if the author of this book might know a thing or two about Ireland and WWII
    51QuA0AJcHL._SS500_.jpg





    No problem boss, but that does not make Gerald Morgan an expert in Irish history. Could they not find one in Trinity, no?
    Just shows he hopped on a bandwagon. What was it again "60% were pro-Nazi" he tells us. Evidence?

    The fact that the book calls Ireland "Southern Ireland" shows that it was written by a British person, who didn't bother to learn the name of the state.


    ...incidentally what does that plaque mention "Southern Ireland".:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    41kbFWZhYHL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
    In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality, 1939-45 by Robert Fisk
    Product Description
    When the Union Jack was hauled down over the Atlantic naval ports of Cobh, Berehaven and Lough Swilly in 1939, the Irish were jubilant. But in London, Churchhill brooded on the 'incomprehensible' act of surrendering three of the Royal Navy's finest ports when Europe was about to go to war. Eighteen months later, Churchill was talking of military action against Ireland. He demanded the return of the ports and the Irish made ready to defend their country against British, as well as German invasion. In Northern Ireland, a Unionist Government vainly tried to introduce conscription. Along the west coast British submarines prowled the seas searching for German U-boats sheltering in the bays; British agents toured the villages of Donegal in search of fifth columnists, while their German counterparts tried to make contact with the IRA. This is a fascinating study of Ireland during the Second World War. "Anybody interested in Irish affairs will have to get Fisk's book." - "Literary Review".
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-War-Ireland-Neutrality-1939-45/dp/0717124118


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Tell me, I wonder if the author of this book might know a thing or two about Ireland and WWI

    I would like to know what he is basing his assertion on.

    He is an english professor, now if he were to comment on emergency literature fair enough but if a historian writes something I want it backed up by sources and discussed.

    Beckett was in the French resistance.Yeats died in France and Joyce in Switzerland so I can understand his interest.

    If he is basing his estimates on them & say the writings of Francis Stuart and his buddies then they would hardly be representative of society.

    And, being anti an alliance with Britain does not make someone a German supporter. To quote the great Cork philosopher Daniel O'Leary in WWI.
    “Mr. O’Leary, senior, father of the famous V.C., speaking in the Inchigeela district, urged the young men to join the British army. ‘If you don’t’, he told them, ‘the Germans will come here and will do to you what the English have been doing for the last seven hundred years’.” (excerpted from Frank Gallagher's Four Glorious Years, 1953. He wrote under the pen name David Hogan.)

    So I would like to see his sources and know what bias if any he has.


  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭A.Tomas


    Belfast wrote: »
    41kbFWZhYHL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
    In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality, 1939-45 by Robert Fisk
    Product Description
    When the Union Jack was hauled down over the Atlantic naval ports of Cobh, Berehaven and Lough Swilly in 1939, the Irish were jubilant. But in London, Churchhill brooded on the 'incomprehensible' act of surrendering three of the Royal Navy's finest ports when Europe was about to go to war. Eighteen months later, Churchill was talking of military action against Ireland. He demanded the return of the ports and the Irish made ready to defend their country against British, as well as German invasion. In Northern Ireland, a Unionist Government vainly tried to introduce conscription. Along the west coast British submarines prowled the seas searching for German U-boats sheltering in the bays; British agents toured the villages of Donegal in search of fifth columnists, while their German counterparts tried to make contact with the IRA. This is a fascinating study of Ireland during the Second World War. "Anybody interested in Irish affairs will have to get Fisk's book." - "Literary Review".
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-War-Ireland-Neutrality-1939-45/dp/0717124118


    Now, there's a book and author!:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Incidences of desertion in the British Army in WWII (from Ahrenfeldt, Psychiatry in the British Army in the Second World War, p. 273):

    1/10/39-30/9/40: army strength (average) 1,538,675; deserters 6,889; incidence per thousand soldiers 4.48
    1/10/40-30/9/41: army strength (average) 2,211,547; deserters 22,248; incidence per thousand soldiers 10.05
    1/10/41-30/9/42: army strength (average) 2,455,720; deserters 20,834; incidence per thousand soldiers 8.49
    1/10/42-30/9/43: army strength (average) 2,681,697; deserters 15,824; incidence per thousand soldiers 5.9
    1/10/43-30/9/44: army strength (average) 2,729,480; deserters 16,892; incidence per thousand soldiers 6.19
    1/10/44-30/9/45: army strength (average) 2,830,831; deserters 17,663; incidence per thousand soldiers 6.24.

    I would imagine that a certain % of the deserters listed above would have been Irishmen who decided to return home to the relative safety of Ireland,are there any figures or estimates available? what was the punishment they received from the British goverment?What do you think would be the British public's attitude be towards them? both then and now?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm



    You should check Wikipedia for a quote "peace in our time" by a chap called Neville Chamberlain.

    I think the quote is "peace for our time" and the British and French ignored the German Nazi build up until it was too late.

    That did not make it an irish problem and ireland had our own problems

    our population didnt begin to stabilize/stop declining until around 1970 and if you look at the north the process of political stabilisation is just happening in the past decade or so.

    Ireland was in a very bad place anyway

    A.Tomas wrote: »

    Why they think Ireland's sovereignty should have been less important than providing manpower for Britain ......., or consider 7 years of blacklisting from the civil service(if they even applied) worse than execution, I'll never know....

    ..!

    I have bolded that part because it really is the hub of the argument.

    Ireland was probably one of the only democracies that emerged from WWI to survive in tact following WWII

    To achieve that it had to bob & weave thru WWII and why restricting its , less than loyal, former servicemen applying for public service jobs is a small sanction is a concern now is funny pathetic.

    And , lest we forget, Europe was a bombed out shell post WWII and no-one knew what would emerge.

    None of that should take away from Britain/Churchill standing up against the Nazi's or anyones bravery in WWII as the Nazi's were monsterous and evil and Ireland and the Irish did play a significant and often unrecognized part in it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    CDfm wrote: »
    I think the quote is "peace for our time" and the British and French ignored the German Nazi build up until it was too late.

    That did not make it an irish problem and ireland had our own problems

    our population didnt begin to stabilize/stop declining until around 1970 and if you look at the north the process of political stabilisation is just happening in the past decade or so.

    Ireland was in a very bad place anyway




    I have bolded that part because it really is the hub of the argument.

    Ireland was probably one of the only democracies that emerged from WWI to survive in tact following WWII

    To achieve that it had to bob & weave thru WWII and why restricting its , less than loyal, former servicemen applying for public service jobs is a small sanction is a concern now is funny pathetic.

    And , lest we forget, Europe was a bombed out shell post WWII and no-one knew what would emerge.

    None of that should take away from Britain/Churchill standing up against the Nazi's or anyones bravery in WWII as the Nazi's were monsterous and evil and Ireland and the Irish did play a significant and often unrecognized part in it.


    Churchill was a warmonger who loved nothing better than a scrap. There is a reason why his own people got rid of him at the end of the war. nobody wanted another one.

    we should also recognise the part Irish people played in Frances's and America's wars. Irishmen who served in British armed forces do not like to be placed on the same level as the French Foreign Legion.
    with Irishmen in the American armed forces it is also a little awkward although fighting weapons of mass destruction sounds a lot like freedom of small nations and also some the cause they pursued were less than noble . I believe it was Grant who said 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian'. I am sure thousands of Irish soldiers fought the evils of communisim in Vietnam. let them be remembered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    A.Tomas wrote: »
    No problem boss, but that does not make Gerald Morgan an expert in Irish history. Could they not find one in Trinity, no?
    Just shows he hopped on a bandwagon. What was it again "60% were pro-Nazi" he tells us. Evidence?

    The fact that the book calls Ireland "Southern Ireland" shows that it was written by a British person, who didn't bother to learn the name of the state.


    ...incidentally what does that plaque mention "Southern Ireland".:D

    No, he does not state that 60% were pro Nazi, you are putting words in his mouth.

    I don't know Gerard Morgan, bit I would hazard a guess and say that a senior lecturer at Trinity is no fool, so trying to belittle him is a bit pointless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    Churchill was a warmonger who loved nothing better than a scrap. There is a reason why his own people got rid of him at the end of the war. nobody wanted another one.

    Winston was about the only British politician with the credibility to pull it off.

    we should also recognise the part Irish people played in Frances's and America's wars. Irishmen who served in British armed forces do not like to be placed on the same level as the French Foreign Legion.
    with Irishmen in the American armed forces it is also a little awkward although fighting weapons of mass destruction sounds a lot like freedom of small nations and also some the cause they pursued were less than noble . I believe it was Grant who said 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian'. I am sure thousands of Irish soldiers fought the evils of communisim in Vietnam. let them be remembered.

    Specifically the British do not acknowledge the debt they owe the Irish for WWII assistance either as individuals or as a state cos if they did the programme would have been "We are not worthy".
    No, he does not state that 60% were pro Nazi, you are putting words in his mouth.

    I don't know Gerard Morgan, bit I would hazard a guess and say that a senior lecturer at Trinity is no fool, so trying to belittle him is a bit pointless.

    I'd estimate that 60% of the population expected or indeed hoped the Germans would win.


    Fairly unequivocal doncha think ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Thank you for your diagnosis Doctor, I will get some cream for that next time I'm at the chemist:rolleyes:

    Tell me, I wonder if the author of this book might know a thing or two about Ireland and WWII
    51QuA0AJcHL._SS500_.jpg

    For someone who's supposed to know a thing or two about ireland the author sure made a balls of the title :P


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    CDfm wrote: »
    Winston was about the only British politician with the credibility to pull it off.

    Specifically the British do not acknowledge the debt they owe the Irish for WWII assistance either as individuals or as a state cos if they did the programme would have been "We are not worthy".



    I'd estimate that 60% of the population expected or indeed hoped the Germans would win.


    Fairly unequivocal doncha think ?

    I know a lot of people who are in favour of a united Ireland, that does not make them Pro IRA.

    Someone in Ireland wanting Germany to beat Britain (and it is quite clear there were a lot of people in that camp, I refer back to the statue of Sean Russell) does not make that person a Nazi sympathiser. Gerard Morans statement does not imply there was wide spread support for the Nazis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,112 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    If the alleged 60% were nazis, then I would have expected an Irish fascist government to be in power with that kind of support.

    Hoping that Britain was going to lose seems more spite than ideology.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    CDfm wrote: »
    ,yes in a way you did recieve aid ,but not under the terms of the marshall plan,US decision was not an automatic one,anger with wartime neutrality was still strong in washington.US minister to dublin george garrett believed that ireland was as vulnerable as any other european country,but US annoyance was soon evident,the bulk of assistance came in the form of loans rather than grants ,unlike to other european countries


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Someone in Ireland wanting Germany to beat Britain (and it is quite clear there were a lot of people in that camp, I refer back to the statue of Sean Russell) does not make that person a Nazi sympathiser. Gerard Morans statement does not imply there was wide spread support for the Nazis.

    In the late sixties there was a well-known diehard republican/IRA supporter (he had a vegetable round in south Dublin) who used to comment 'You can say what you like about Hitler, but didn't he bomb London!'
    P.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    In the late sixties there was a well-known diehard republican/IRA supporter (he had a vegetable round in south Dublin) who used to comment 'You can say what you like about Hitler, but didn't he bomb London!'
    P.

    it was still quite acceptable to say 'hitler was not all bad, sure didn't he fight the english' up until the eighties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    CDfm wrote: »
    Winston was about the only British politician with the credibility to pull it off.

    Specifically the British do not acknowledge the debt they owe the Irish for WWII assistance either as individuals or as a state cos if they did the programme would have been "We are not worthy".



    I'd estimate that 60% of the population expected or indeed hoped the Germans would win.


    Fairly unequivocal doncha think ?

    winston was a warlord, committed to war and would never consider peace. hess was sent as a peace emissary in 1941. Thousands, if not millions of deaths cold have been avoided.

    we are told that hitler wanted to beat the brits, but some people believe he wanted peace with Britain. after all he had nothing but admiration for the brits who embraced the notion of the master race but still deny it. have a strong German Europe united against the reds and leave the brits to their empire.
    even churchill was prepared to go to war with Stalin at the time of the Russio finnish war. things could have turned very differently.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    If the alleged 60% were nazis, then I would have expected an Irish fascist government to be in power with that kind of support.

    Hoping that Britain was going to lose seems more spite than ideology.

    Ireland was full of barstool Nazis and republicans. if Germany had won we would all have had to learn another language.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    In the late sixties there was a well-known diehard republican/IRA supporter (he had a vegetable round in south Dublin) who used to comment 'You can say what you like about Hitler, but didn't he bomb London!'
    P.
    he also bombed dublin ,over two dozen people killed


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    Belfast wrote: »
    I could see the Germans bombing us, but could not see how they could transport and supply and army big enough to invade Ireland.

    True that Germany may not have been able to invade us, due to the presence of Britain. But, judging by what happened in the north, had we sided officially with Britain, the British army would have re-entered the twenty six counties and set up defensive measures against possible German invasion. Thus, a newly independent sovereign state was going to be welcoming in foreign forces.

    We all know Fianna Fáil would never have given away Irish sovereignty, willy nilly. It's not their style..... (!)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    True that Germany may not have been able to invade us, due to the presence of Britain. But, judging by what happened in the north, had we sided officially with Britain, the British army would have re-entered the twenty six counties and set up defensive measures against possible German invasion. Thus, a newly independent sovereign state was going to be welcoming in foreign forces.

    We all know Fianna Fáil would never have given away Irish sovereignty, willy nilly. It's not their style..... (!)
    the german plan was to first invade britain then on to invade ireland,not the other way round, the germans bombed ireland on the 26th of aug [co wexford] 20th dec [sandycove ] two nights 1st 2nd jan [meath,carlow kildare,wexford,dublin] 3rd jan [dublin] 31st may [dublin] 2nd june [arklow] 24th july [dundalk] only a idiot could believe all that was by accident


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    getz wrote: »
    the german plan was to first invade britain then on to invade ireland,not the other way round,

    Had Ireland declared itself and ally, plans might have changed. Only an idiot would read back into history that way.
    getz wrote: »
    the germans bombed ireland on the 26th of aug [co wexford] 20th dec [sandycove ] two nights 1st 2nd jan [meath,carlow kildare,wexford,dublin] 3rd jan [dublin] 31st may [dublin] 2nd june [arklow] 24th july [dundalk] only a idiot could believe all that was by accident

    No one has claimed all of it was by accident.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    the german could not even get enough boats and troops together to cross the english channel never mind trying a landing in ireland,the german bomber that hit dublin said 10 years ago it was a accident,but anyone knows that all british cities had a black out at night,ireland [dublin] only had a partial blackout ,so it was obvious it was not a british city,they even bombed ireland in daylight hrs


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    True that Germany may not have been able to invade us, due to the presence of Britain. But, judging by what happened in the north, had we sided officially with Britain, the British army would have re-entered the twenty six counties and set up defensive measures against possible German invasion. Thus, a newly independent sovereign state was going to be welcoming in foreign forces.

    We all know Fianna Fáil would never have given away Irish sovereignty, willy nilly. It's not their style..... (!)

    It would have cost the British dearly.....in used notes of mixed currency stuffed into suitcases.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    I know a lot of people who are in favour of a united Ireland, that does not make them Pro IRA.

    Someone in Ireland wanting Germany to beat Britain (and it is quite clear there were a lot of people in that camp, I refer back to the statue of Sean Russell) does not make that person a Nazi sympathiser. Gerard Morans statement does not imply there was wide spread support for the Nazis.

    Sorry Fred , I can't agree with you totally , Mr Morgans statement does insuninate that there was widespread support for a German (as opposed to a Nazi)victory.He should have choosen his words more carefully as they will be seized upon by those who have a specific agenda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    getz wrote: »
    the german could not even get enough boats and troops together to cross the english channel never mind trying a landing in ireland,the german bomber that hit dublin said 10 years ago it was a accident,but anyone knows that all british cities had a black out at night,ireland [dublin] only had a partial blackout ,so it was obvious it was not a british city,they even bombed ireland in daylight hrs

    You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Best of luck to you!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    It would have cost the British dearly.....in used notes of mixed currency stuffed into suitcases.
    there was a plan that never got off the drawing board on ireland,called operation green,but hitler view was that,a landing in ireland can be attempted only if ireland requests help.grand admiral erich reader of the naval high command said,to a defending force cut off to its own devices,the topogaphy of the country[ireland] does not afford us much protection without supplies and reinforcements,they would soon feel the increasing pressure of british expeditionary force brought over under the protection of british naval power,sooner or later our own troops would face a situation similer to nansos or dunkirk. .....remember ireland at this time was wholly dependant on the british bringing in food oil ect, there was also a build up of american troops in northern ireland by 1942 there was 37,000 eventually there would be over 120,000 USA service men in the north,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    Sorry Fred , I can't agree with you totally , Mr Morgans statement does insuninate that there was widespread support for a German (as opposed to a Nazi)victory.He should have choosen his words more carefully as they will be seized upon by those who have a specific agenda.

    He said 60% hoped for, or expected a German victory.

    How any people would it need to start a civil war, because that was the fear if Ireland threw its lot in with Britain, 25%? So we can presume that 25% wanted a German victory.

    How many expected a German victory (after Dunkirk, a lot both sides of the Irish sea I would say) maybe another 25%?

    His Estimate of 60% may not be that wild.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    getz wrote: »
    ,yes in a way you did recieve aid ,................,the bulk of assistance came in the form of loans rather than grants ,unlike to other european countries

    I think that the idea that a small pipsqueak of a country didn't trust the world powers had more than a little to do with it and they knew it while it is not explicitly said.

    League of Nations people.

    DeV had chilled post the economic war negotiations and the de-militarisation of the treaty ports was an unexpected concession.

    The death of his mother in 1932, son in 1936 & half-brother in 1946 meant that his sucesses had a bit of bad karma & he certainly became less of a hardass telling Churchill in 1953 that he would never have left the Commonwealth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    He said 60% hoped for, or expected a German victory.

    How any people would it need to start a civil war, because that was the fear if Ireland threw its lot in with Britain, 25%? So we can presume that 25% wanted a German victory.

    How many expected a German victory (after Dunkirk, a lot both sides of the Irish sea I would say) maybe another 25%?

    His Estimate of 60% may not be that wild.

    Well I think he is wildly inaccurate and I am going by what my elderly parent's and deceased grandparents said.

    AFAIK , the number of German supporters was very small and the Irish Diaspora was in the UK & US and the Irish were serving in those armies so it was the "home" side. irish deaths were reported & if an Irish civilian died in a bombing raid in England there was no doubt who the killers were.

    An alliance with Britain would have brought with it percieved "occupation" by the British forces and that in itself was not a reason to support Germany as Britain was not an "external" threat only to the extent that if "invited" they may not leave.

    Look at it this way, a bunch of hairy arsed farmers members of Camplile Creamery in Co Wexford took a vote not to supply Germany and while it may seem a grand gesture -it pissed off the German's sufficiently to do a daytime bombing.

    Some of these farmers were War of Independence Veteran's.

    Just because someone is wet does not mean they came down in the last shower.
    It would have cost the British dearly.....in used notes of mixed currency stuffed into suitcases.

    A very candid admission of British espionage from you.

    Can you tell us more ?:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    He said 60% hoped for, or expected a German victory.

    How any people would it need to start a civil war, because that was the fear if Ireland threw its lot in with Britain, 25%? So we can presume that 25% wanted a German victory.

    How many expected a German victory (after Dunkirk, a lot both sides of the Irish sea I would say) maybe another 25%?

    His Estimate of 60% may not be that wild.

    The implicit meaning in his statement appears to be that 60% of the Irish population supported Germany( and that includes Nazis as well) because they hoped for a German victory.
    With regard to your ludicrous attempt at a retrospective tally on support for Germany:D, might I suggest you also use these significant events as markers and timeframes to speculate on support for the combatants, after the Battle of Britain, after Operation Barbarossa,Pearl Harbour,Stalingrad,Invasion of Italy, D-Day,Hitlers suicide (but no doubt you will say there was at least one man who still hoped Germany would win after hitlers suicide.):rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred said
    How many expected a German victory (after Dunkirk, a lot both sides of the Irish sea I would say) maybe another 25%?

    Does this mean that there were British supporters of a German Victory or peace with Germany as Rudolf Hess believed ?

    If so, what type of support.

    And there was Oswalds Mosley's lot ;the British Union of Fascists ? Were they not interned too ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    With regard to the discussion on the supposed figure of 60% support for Germany I thinks some points need to be considered.

    - Ireland was neutral and most commentary on this period would indicate that this was a popular and supported stance.

    - Public opinion in Ireland would have been greatly affected by the bombings of Belfast (which saw Dublin send help) and Dublin which were in 1941 (I think). So the figure of support for any side in the war would not be consistent throughout.

    The figure is not supported by any proper verifiable source evidence at this stage. It needs to have a source if it to be taken seriously IMO.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A bit off topic I know but last May
    Mosley's Irish pile on the market


    It is rarely mentioned but there was quite a bit of Anglophilia in Germany and cultural ties and exchanges happened as it was fashionable in a way that would not have happened in Ireland at the time to any great extent.
    Gerwin Strobl's elegant, imaginative, and methodologically innovative book demonstrates that there is still a great deal to explore, especially in terms of Nazi perceptions of the "other," and in the case of Great Britain, an "other" that was regarded with approval and even envy by the Nazi leadership and the German people alike. The Germanic Isle is an excellent example of the potential of fresh cultural approaches being applied to political and diplomatic history and to the often over-earnest field of international relations.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3686/is_3_37/ai_n28971024/


  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭A.Tomas


    CDfm wrote: »
    I think that the idea that a small pipsqueak of a country didn't trust the world powers had more than a little to do with it and they knew it while it is not explicitly said.

    League of Nations people.

    DeV had chilled post the economic war negotiations and the de-militarisation of the treaty ports was an unexpected concession.

    The death of his mother in 1932, son in 1936 & half-brother in 1946 meant that his sucesses had a bit of bad karma & he certainly became less of a hardass telling Churchill in 1953 that he would never have left the Commonwealth.


    Just one correction because it comes up sometimes, it was always FF policy to wait for re-unification before leaving the British commonwealth.

    It was not as some would like us to believe that it was because we fawned for Britain or that it was indeed normal behaviour for countries to be subjects of others.

    Interestingly, Dev, when he got the opportunity to speak at the League of Nations blamed the imperialist countries for starting wars and not respecting the rights/self-determination of small nations. (ie greedy countries, not the Jews or Indians or Zulus)

    That might show that he neither wanted Germany to gobble up Europe nor have Ireland invaded or occupied.

    Not that odd when one thinks about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A.Tomas wrote: »
    Just one correction because it comes up sometimes, it was always FF policy to wait for re-unification before leaving the British commonwealth.

    Thanks, I did not know that.
    getz wrote: »
    the german could not even get enough boats and troops together to cross the english channel never mind trying a landing in ireland,the german bomber that hit dublin said 10 years ago it was a accident,but anyone knows that all british cities had a black out at night,ireland [dublin] only had a partial blackout ,so it was obvious it was not a british city,they even bombed ireland in daylight hrs

    The Irish Press which was a national newspaper controlled by DeValera ran this headline.

    irish_press.jpg

    plaque.JPG

    for more pics click here


    http://homepage.eircom.net/~horeswoodns/campile_bombing.htm

    The German's regularly dropped bombs off Wexford and knew the area well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    CDfm wrote: »
    The German's regularly dropped bombs off Wexford and knew the area well.

    Both RAF and Luftwaffe dropped bombs when low on fuel to lighten their load and, should they reach a landing strip, to ensure a safer landing. Bombs were dropped over the sea where possible.
    There is another story on the Campile bombing herer http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-day-hitlers-bombs-brought-death-to-a-quiet-wexford-village-2289602.html
    An ex-Signal Corps officer I knew always believed that the North Strand bombing was as a result of interference by Britain with the vector beams used by Germany for aircraft navigation guidance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams
    Photographs illustrating some of the damage caused by the German bombing of the North Strand, 1941 accompanied by reminiscences of the bombing from Dublin City Archives' North Strand Bombing Reminiscences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqjZ-2bkfX0
    P.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    So, has anybody in the entire thread mentioned that these "heroes" were paid much, much more to fight with the British and thus had a financial reason to desert the Irish Army?

    Anybody?

    Or would such a basic fact strip them of the romantic and heroic veneer that the usual British nationalist posters want to portray them with? All this nonsense about them "wanting" to fight the Nazis.:rolleyes:

    These deserters were traitors and opportunists. They should be apologising to us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    @Rebel Heart Posts 26 & 28 ask it.

    Do we have any detail of pay comparisons.

    Also, the demographic of the recruit themselves . Were they from "military type" families from garrison towns and was pay was a factor.

    Britains military had been run down during the 1930's and were their opportunities for advancement ?

    Whatever your personal opinions - it would be great to see some facts and sources.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,112 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    If it was the money, surely they would have joined the US army (some did, but I don't know whether they were deserters), which allegedly paid more than the British army? The Irish deserters would then have been "Overpaid, over-sexed, and over there".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »

    It seems it varies according to http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1940-02-27a.1884.9

    So we have Irish Private at
    PAY OF PRIVATES :- The Permanent Force and The Reserve of Men, Classes "A" and "B".

    Rank. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Rates per diem. (In Shillings and Pence).

    Private, Class I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6.

    Private, Class I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.

    Private, Class I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.

    Privates who enlisted in the Forces prior to the 14th October, 1926 receive 6d. per diem in addition to the above rates.

    PAY OF PRIVATES:- The Reserve - The Volunteer Force:-

    Rank. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Rates per diem. (In Shillings and Pence).

    Private, Class I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.

    Privates, Classes I I, I I I, and I V. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

    Note:- Men enlisting in the Permanent Force for the duration of the present emergency who have previous military experience may be graded as Privates Class I I., and paid at the rate of 2/3d. a day from the date of enlistment.

    ADDITIONAL PAY.

    Additional pay at varying rates may be granted to non-commissioned officers and men of the Permanent Force, The Volunteer Force, employed as clerks, tradesmen. etc,. according to their qualifications. (from CDfm's link)

    and British at
    The rates of pay in the British Army range from 2s. to 6s. 3d. a day in the case of a private, 3s. 3d. to 6s. 6d. a day in the case of a lance-corporal, 4s. to 7s. 3d. a day in the case of a corporal, and 6s. to 8s. 9d. a day in the case of a serjeant. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1940-02-27a.1884.9
    From this it seems that it varied depending on a number of varying factors which make it quite hard to compare directly. It does give us though the lowest pays which were presumably the starting pay of Irish = 2s, British = 2s (both rates daily). Thus there was no massive difference in start pay. I would imagine that active service would see this figure rise and there was more potential for this in Britain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,112 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Surely someone must have asked the deserters why they did what they did? Again, someone must have asked those who stayed put, the reason for their not deserting?

    I'd ask an uncle of mine who didn't desert, and was a sergeant up at the Curragh, but he died years ago.:(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    An update , it looks like revisionism is getting a revival.

    Irish government promises action on WWII deserters

    The then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, inspects his country's neutral army


    The Irish government is to take action over the soldiers who were punished for fighting with the British during World War II, the BBC understands.
    Ireland was neutral during the conflict, but around 10% of its armed forces deserted to join the fight against fascism.
    On their return many were placed on an official blacklist, banning them from getting jobs, benefits or pensions.
    There has been growing pressure on Dublin to issue the men with a pardon.
    Now Senator Mary Ann O'Brien says Ireland's minister of justice, Alan Shatter, is actively working on the matter.
    She said: "I'm glad to say that it is very much foremost on his agenda and he said that we will hear from him at the end of the first quarter of 2012."
    Around 5,000 soldiers were formally dismissed from the Irish army for serving with the British.
    "Starvation order" They were 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.
    John Stout fought in the Battle of the Bulge but was treated as a pariah back home in Cork.
    Many also had their children taken into care.
    John Stout served with the Irish Guards armoured division which raced to Arnhem to capture a key bridge.
    He also fought in the Battle of the Bulge, ending the war as a commando.
    On his return home to Cork, however, he says he was treated as a pariah.
    "What they did to us was wrong," he says.
    "I know that in my heart. They cold-shouldered you. They didn't speak to you.
    "A lot of Irish people wanted Germany to win the war - they were dead up against the British."
    A special "list" was drawn up containing their names and addresses, and circulated to every government department, town hall and railway station - anywhere the men might look for a job.
    It was referred to in the Irish parliament - the Dail - at the time as a "starvation order".
    Senator O'Brien described the list as a stain on the nation's history.
    She said: "I just think it would be such a wonderful gift to those people and it's such a small gift to make sure that they're properly pardoned and recognised for what they did."



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16387821
    817-grey.gif

    I think the assertion that Ireland was anti British is just plain wrong and that is not borne out by the facts or that the men were treated harshly. It simply was not so.

    The realpolitik of the time is being ignored.

    Are we going to make these guys saints and martyrs and demonize those who did all they could to protect the embryonic state.

    Where are the Irish needs getting recognised in all this and is the Irish contribution being acknowledged by the British ?

    Lots of Irish history that is written and taught is a spin and this seems to be another fiction in the making.


  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭A.Tomas


    Seeing that article on the BBC website just now.
    It is like one you would see on the Stormfront website or indeed a British tabloid. Same sensationalist pro-British agenda.


    Funnily enough, there is a different headline in their UK and European editions.

    "More on This Story
    Related Stories

    Irish soldiers who hid their medals 28 DECEMBER 2011, UK
    Pressure to pardon Irish deserters 28 DECEMBER 2011, EUROPE
    "






    One would have to wonder do the people photographed not have any shame.

    Disgraceful.

    If the BBC wanted to "face the facts" they would have mentioned the drink-fuelled British threats on Irish freedom, or indeed cite the British penalty for desertion, but who would expect them to do that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    Interesting the respect that the British give to members of their own army.

    "Ireland's dwindling band of British Army veterans were snubbed by not being invited to celebrate Queen Elizabeth's birthday, according to the Journal of The Royal British Legion.

    The old soldiers living in Ireland, many of them veterans of the Second World War and now in their eighties, believe they have been "forgotten" by Britain's diplomatic representatives in Ireland.

    The president of the Irish branch of the ex-servicemen's association, Don J Mooney MBE, was sadly only invited to the garden party in the British ambassador's residence after he telephoned and asked for an invitation to the event.

    "On a pleasant warm evening, it was somewhat disconcerting to see so few ex-service people present", he says in the current edition of Metrolink, the old soldier's journal.

    "I don't know what can have happened to the previous Embassy invitation list, but I believe there would be a number of ex-service people who would appreciate an invitation to this reception as a small acknowledgement that their diminished community has not been forgotten."

    Some of the veterans believe that there is a certain amount of "British ingratitude" to the men and women who joined the British forces at the country's hour of greatest need.

    "It was rather sad, and even a little humiliating, that our president had to actually ask for an invitation to the garden party," said one member of the British legion who did not want to be named.

    "It seems that at a time when people like President McAleese are falling over themselves to be tactful, we are treated like this by the eejits in the British Embassy," he said, reviving some of the fighting spirit of Dunkirk.

    Members say that about a decade ago the guest list was changed and 'the old guard' of servicemen and Anglo-Irish 'gentry' were dropped.

    This garden party was held at the British ambassador's residence in Glencairn, near Sandyford, and the "snub" was satirised in a poem written by Morgan Dockrell:

    It matters not that Granpa Tom

    Was decorated at the Somme,

    That cousin Percy didn't shirk

    His Duty, fleeing to Dunkirk.

    Better for us to row by row

    Have gathered in the GPO.

    H E decides we've no more clout,

    Which means that socially we're OUT."

    British embassy snub for Ireland's WWII veterans


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,112 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    What were the rules with those signing up to join the Irish army pre-war? Was there an option for soldiers to buy themselves out etc.?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    A slightly different slant.

    Some figures for desertion from the British Army during WW2 :

    1/10/39-30/9/40: 6,889
    1/10/40-30/9/41: 22,248
    1/10/41-30/9/42: 20,834
    1/10/42-30/9/43: 15,824
    1/10/43-30/9/44: 16,892
    1/10/44-30/9/45: 17,663

    At any one time there were usually a fair large number classed as Absent Without Leave.

    In 1950, The Minister of Defence spoke at Westminster stating that there were 19,477 absentees: 1,267 were from the Royal Navy, 13,884 from the British Army and 4,366 from the Royal Air Force. An amnesty was offered in 1953 and received 3000 applications.

    In 1948, the US Army was still tracking down 21,000 WW2 deserters.

    1 deserter was shot by the US army during WW2. Desertion ceased to be a capital offence in the BA in the 1920's.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    It is rarely mentioned but there was quite a bit of Anglophilia in Germany and cultural ties and exchanges happened as it was fashionable in a way that would not have happened in Ireland at the time to any great extent.[/QUOTE]

    as indeed was there considerable germanophila in Britain where i the early thirties mister Hitler was proclaimed to have been a wonderful man who tackled umemployment( although his blueprint for further ambitions was outlined in English versions of Mein Kampf it bothered no one).
    it was more awkward for the royals who only became british at the WWI and peopel like Karl Edward were labelled traitors.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    I lived in Newbridge for a while a few years back and you would regularly see a gent sporting British WW2 medals and nobody ever said anything to him. You do not see this very often in Dublin, but then again we do not live in a very militaristic society


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,112 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    It is rarely mentioned but there was quite a bit of Anglophilia in Germany and cultural ties and exchanges happened as it was fashionable in a way that would not have happened in Ireland at the time to any great extent.

    as indeed was there considerable germanophila in Britain where i the early thirties mister Hitler was proclaimed to have been a wonderful man who tackled umemployment( although his blueprint for further ambitions was outlined in English versions of Mein Kampf it bothered no one).
    it was more awkward for the royals who only became british at the WWI and peopel like Karl Edward were labelled traitors.

    Which royals, and who was Karl Edward?:confused:


Advertisement