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

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 8:05pm

Other - Please explain.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Britain was not in a position to go to to was at the time Czecholslokia was invaded.

Neither was it at the time that Poland was invaded.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 8:10pm

Other - Please explain.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

These men were cast as 'betrayers' of poor little neutral Ireland who was all alone without a friend in the world (The U.S participated in the blockage of Irish ports too but politically Dev and co didn't want to discuss that...) who 'deserted' the motherland to fight for the old enemy. It wasn't just the men who were punished - their families were too. State benefits were practically non-existant, and those that did exist could not be claimed by a married woman - that was man's business. WWI veterans were also treated appallingly in the early years of the Free State - cast as 'traitors' and reviled.

Desertion is a serious offence. It's not PC to say so, but there it is. It's particularly serious in the context of a World War, and serious threat of invasion. 'Betrayers, by the way,' is your own invention and spin on what's being discussed here.

And the WWI thing is bunkum. There were WWI veterans on the Irish side in the War of Independence (like Tom Barry). And James Connolly had been a sergeant in the BA.

gbee · 07-01-2012 8:20pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

I think the whole think is a disgrace. We were never really neutral anyway, though that's easy to say now, for obvious reasons.

At the time it was probably a serious let down, but given the nature of the war and the effectual defeat of Britain, just a handful of men saved the day, some of them Irish and some of them maybe amongst the deserters.

This war hinged on so few that every man counted, our 5,000 might just have been the tiny balance that was needed until the mighty USA launched full scale.

I'm personally saddened to hear of the plight of these men, my family are involved in the military since the war and I know where was hard feelings in our family ~ never really knew why, deserters are not highly thought of, but desert what exactly?

I think it would still be a stretch of the imagination to say the Irish Army, it did not exist until 1946 and the Republic. The 'army' then would still be a ragtag of all sides.

Of course these men should be pardoned.

BlaasForRafa · 07-01-2012 8:34pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

wildfowler94 wrote: »

Put it this way lads if someone deserted today and join the brits because they wanted to fight the taliban how would you feel?
Nazism or no Nazism they took an oath to serve the Irish state and they should have stuck to that oath.

To compare the nazis and the taliban is ridiculous and this its unfortunate that this topic provides the usual anti-brit crowd a chance to have a rant.

Of course these men should get a pardon. Those who went to fight against the nazis, I wouldn't even call them deserters, they made a moral choice to fight for a good cause.

neilled · 07-01-2012 8:52pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

I think the whole think is a disgrace. We were never really neutral anyway, though that's easy to say now, for obvious reasons.

At the time it was probably a serious let down, but given the nature of the war and the effectual defeat of Britain, just a handful of men saved the day, some of them Irish and some of them maybe amongst the deserters.

This war hinged on so few that every man counted, our 5,000 might just have been the tiny balance that was needed until the mighty USA launched full scale.

I'm personally saddened to hear of the plight of these men, my family are involved in the military since the war and I know where was hard feelings in our family ~ never really knew why, deserters are not highly thought of, but desert what exactly?

I think it would still be a stretch of the imagination to say the Irish Army, it did not exist until 1946 and the Republic. The 'army' then would still be a ragtag of all sides.

Of course these men should be pardoned.

And had the allies decided to invade the free state i'm sure 5000 men might have mattered as well.

I have no qualms with anyone who emigrated to work or fight with the british - provided they hadn't signed up to defend the Irish State and absented themselves from their posts.

However, absence or desertion were and still are serious crimes against military law in any state. Desert from the British Armed Forces today and your name will go into the police database. Get pulled for a traffic offence and you'll yourself being handed over to the Red Caps who'll send you off for Court Martial - which will end with time in the military slammer.

These men took an oath to be faithful to Ireland and obey all lawful orders (I don't have the exact wording of the oath at the time of the emergency) issued to them. They broke that and deserted their posts. The fact that they went to the allies doesn't come into it.

The Irish Army did not suddenly appear after 1946 or 1949 - it was established in the aftermath of the treaty and had a legal basis for existence. I suggest reading JP duggans book on the matter or even ospreys book on the uniforms of the df will give you a bit of basic information. Was it badly equipped and underfunded? Certainly. Even requests for basic purchases like the well tried and tested vickers machine gun were denied by the department of finance who wanted tests conducted again and again to avoid the issue handing over cash to those green dressing fellows and when war broke out it was too late to acquire the proper amounts of defensive equipment necessary.

Should auld fellas who deserted over 60 years ago be sought by AGS or the PA's? Certainly not.

Should they receive a pardon? No. They were dismissed and have paid the price and thats the end of it. We can have a debate about whether the price they paid was too high, however a pardon is condoning the abandonment of their posts, their comrades and of the oath they took to serve the Irish state.

blatantrereg · 07-01-2012 9:07pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

What's an "extreme assertion of both neutrality and independence"?.

Do tell us what you consider a 'reasonable' assertion - British troops on the streets of Dublin, maybe? Do you even know what the terms mean?

Irritating quibbling of semantics. I said in the very next sentence what I was referring to. Is it really worth your time posting just to indicate you disagree with my description - and of course to make some infantile jibe asking if I understand the words? Pretty pathetic no? Are you accomplishing anything? Venting? I really dont get it.

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:08pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

neilled wrote: »

These men took an oath to be faithful to Ireland and obey all lawful orders (I don't have the exact wording of the oath at the time of the emergency) issued to them. They broke that and deserted their posts.

This is a legal part of the incident. An Oath was sworn and THEN the agreement was changed with the emergency powers and neutrality acts.

It also depends on when the men enlisted and why.

I'd say I'd win that case today and possibly win compensation for them too. The case may lie in the tiniest details.

What they signed, when and why and why half of them decided to leave ~ that's quite staggering ~ I'd safely say they could have overrun the state itself with that manpower and obvious steely determination.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:08pm

Other - Please explain.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Of course these men should get a pardon. Those who went to fight against the nazis, I wouldn't even call them deserters, they made a moral choice to fight for a good cause.

Well, you're clearly not well up on the law, are you? Desertion is a serious military offence, and for good reason.

If they had wanted to join the Brits, then they should have gone and bloody done so, as no-one was stopping them. Joining the Irish Army instead just makes them gob****es (and the 92-year-old thinking he'll be arrested reinforces the case).

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:12pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

I think the whole think is a disgrace. We were never really neutral anyway, though that's easy to say now, for obvious reasons.

At the time it was probably a serious let down, but given the nature of the war and the effectual defeat of Britain, just a handful of men saved the day, some of them Irish and some of them maybe amongst the deserters.

This war hinged on so few that every man counted, our 5,000 might just have been the tiny balance that was needed until the mighty USA launched full scale.

Oh, please. There's grasping at straws, but it seems that a new term is needed for arguments more desperate than even that.

I think it would still be a stretch of the imagination to say the Irish Army, it did not exist until 1946 and the Republic. The 'army' then would still be a ragtag of all sides.

What are you on? Seriously, I don't see how anyone not on drugs could be trying to now claim that there was no such thing as the Irish Army during the Emergency ("ergo they couldn't have deserted", I suppose).

xflyer · 07-01-2012 9:14pm

It's very easy to glibly describe these men as traitors who betrayed their oath. All too easy. But that is to ignore the reality of the times. Undoubtedly many joined up for the most patriotic reasons when the war started and when it looked like Ireland must inevitably became involved. But all too soon the reality would have set in. Serving in neutral Ireland can't have been all that interesting. Constant guard duty but no action. It would be mind numbing for any young man seeking action. No wonder they left and joined the Allies. My uncle was one, he's dead now and I cannot ask him about his motivation but I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision.

But whatever the reason, the punishment outweighed the crime. A dishonourable discharge would have been enough. But the punishment meted out was vindictive as befits the regime in place at the time. Remember too that dead men were convicted in absentia, men who died fighting for our freedom albeit in proxy. Remember too that children of these men were described as being abandoned and handed over to orphanages. We all know what they were like? My Mother was in one because her Mother was dead and in spite of still having her Father and other relatives around.

No a pardon and an apology is the least we should expect for these men. It's too late for most of them but it would be symbolic. In fact there should be a formal apology to all of us in this country for the way everyone was treated over the years.

It's long overdue.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:15pm

Other - Please explain.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Irritating quibbling of semantics. I said in the very next sentence what I was referring to. Is it really worth your time posting just to indicate you disagree with my description - and of course to make some infantile jibe asking if I understand the words? Pretty pathetic no? Are you accomplishing anything? Venting? I really dont get it.

It's not "semantics" when you're confronted with such passive-aggressiveness. Assertions of independence and neutrality can be many things, but "extreme"?

blatantrereg · 07-01-2012 9:17pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

It's not "semantics" when you're confronted with such passive-aggressiveness. Assertions of independence and neutrality can be many things, but "extreme"?

semantics: plural of se·man·tics (Noun)
Noun:

The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:17pm

Other - Please explain.

xflyer wrote: »

It's very easy to glibly describe these men as traitors who betrayed their oath. All too easy. But that is to ignore the reality of the times. Undoubtedly many joined up for the most patriotic reasons when the war started and when it looked like Ireland must inevitably became involved. But all too soon the reality would have set in. Serving in neutral Ireland can't have been all that interesting. Constant guard duty but no action. It would be mind numbing for any young man seeking action. No wonder they left and joined the Allies. My uncle was one, he's dead now and I cannot ask him about his motivation but I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision.

You don't get to have your own opinion in the army. You can't decide one day to just pack it all in and swan off, not without facing some serious consequences. Desertion is simply desertion, much as some people here are trying to argue otherwise.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:18pm

Other - Please explain.

blatantrereg wrote: »

semantics: plural of se·man·tics (Noun)
Noun:

The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

Can't/won't defend your use of "extreme". I see.

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:19pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

What are you on? Seriously, I don't see how anyone not on drugs could be trying to now claim that there was no such thing as the Irish Army during the Emergency ("ergo they couldn't have deserted", I suppose).

I love this kind of debate. You won't walk across the road, maybe I should thrown you into the traffic then.

Go into Collins Barracks in Cork and you'll see the formation of the Irish Army, it comes with the Republic, not before.

I'd go so far as to say that the 5,000 who stayed behind are cowards.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:21pm

Other - Please explain.

neilled wrote: »

However, absence or desertion were and still are serious crimes against military law in any state. Desert from the British Armed Forces today and your name will go into the police database. Get pulled for a traffic offence and you'll yourself being handed over to the Red Caps who'll send you off for Court Martial - which will end with time in the military slammer.

I'd like to see the elements in the UK (and cheerleaders for the BA here) behind this campaign answer that one. Is desertion from the BA all right, if you claim conscientious reasons?

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:23pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

I love this kind of debate. You won't walk across the road, maybe I should thrown you into the traffic then.

Go into Collins Barracks in Cork and you'll see the formation of the Irish Army, it comes with the Republic, not before.

The formation 0f the Irish Army was in the 1920s. i reiterate my opinion that you're clearly on drugs.

I'd go so far as to say that the 5,000 who stayed behind are cowards.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the inevitable end-point of this sort of thing. Well, at least you're honest.

neilled · 07-01-2012 9:30pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

This is a legal part of the incident. An Oath was sworn and THEN the agreement was changed with the emergency powers and neutrality acts.

It also depends on when the men enlisted and why.

I'd say I'd win that case today and possibly win compensation for them too. The case may lie in the tiniest details.

What they signed, when and why and why half of them decided to leave ~ that's quite staggering ~ I'd safely say they could have overrun the state itself with that manpower and obvious steely determination.

Soldiers historically and continue to sign to serve for a set period of years in western militaries - normally this was split between full time service and the reserve - from what i recall off the top of my head it came from the brits cardwell reforms. Why you enlisted doesn't come into it - you wouldn't be asked, there's an oath taken to serve the state come what may for a set period of time. Thats why states have armed forces. You didn't see the yanks getting discharges with the patriot act because the terms and conditions had changed. Ever hear of stop loss?

I somehow doubt 5000 men who'd abandoned their posts would have overrun the state, given the size of even the woefully equipped armed forces.

xflyer wrote: »

. Serving in neutral Ireland can't have been all that interesting. Constant guard duty but no action. It would be mind numbing for any young man seeking action. No wonder they left and joined the Allies.

Delete the time period you could make the same argument today for the Army who aren't engaged in expeditionary warfare around the world. None of them, or the states which they serve I'm sure would grant a pardon for such an action.

blatantrereg · 07-01-2012 9:31pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Can't/won't defend your use of "extreme". I see.

your posts make my mind boggle.
There's nothing to defend. You're not debating the information in my post. I dont care whether you agree or disagree with the word "extreme" to describe it. That's a matter of opinion. My opinion is my opinion. It's not something you should care so much about.

I find your post about semantics funny though, given it followed your infantile "do you even know what the terms mean".

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:32pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

The formation 0f the Irish Army was in the 1920s. .

The jurisdiction over these men was under a different government. A new state and army was formed with the Irish Republic. A new oath to a new regime.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:34pm

Other - Please explain.

blatantrereg wrote: »

your posts make my mind boggle.
There's nothing to defend. You're not debating the information in my post. I dont care whether you agree or disagree with the word "extreme" to describe it. That's a matter of opinion. My opinion is my opinion. It's not something you should care so much about.

Oh dear. I've clearly struck a nerve here, it seems.

Oh, well.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:35pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

The jurisdiction over these men was under a different government. A new state and army was formed with the Irish Republic. A new oath to a new regime.

This makes no sense. I haven't changed my mind on your mental state, either.

neilled · 07-01-2012 9:35pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

The jurisdiction over these men was under a different government. A new state and army was formed with the Irish Republic. A new oath to a new regime.

But the republic of Ireland act wasn't until 1948 - it didn't occur during the war at all

?

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:38pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

neilled wrote: »

I somehow doubt 5000 men who'd abandoned their posts would have overrun the state, given the size of even the woefully equipped armed forces.

And I'm sure they never had any intention of even trying ~ the point being emphasised is they were HALF of the armed forces, they were themselves armed ~ obviously given the poor equipment base, maybe they were the half who paraded with a hurley ~ [half joke half serious, I wasn't there

]

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:41pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

neilled wrote: »

But the republic of Ireland act wasn't until 1948 - it didn't occur during the war at all?

Precisely, exactly that. The state that the men left in this thread, the 5,000 deserters, have in fact no state left to prosecute them.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:45pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

Precisely, exactly that. The state that the men left in this thread, the 5,000 deserters, have in fact no state left to prosecute them.

It's a unique legal theory, certainly, I'll give you that.

(Where do they get them from?)

LordSutch · 07-01-2012 9:46pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Option One: Stay here & polish your old WWI rifle, shine you boots, do traffic duty (mostly herding sheep), help with ration control, then in the evenings listen to the Second World War unfold in all its horror on BBC Radio. (no risk to your life, but could you handle the guilt)?

Option Two: Join up with the massive allied force gathering in Britain & the continent, fight Hitler & the Nazi's, fight pure evil and be a part of the largest War effort the world had ever seen, do your part against the Nazi's (at the risk of being killed)!

Option Two for me please.

Morlar · 07-01-2012 9:46pm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

I love this kind of debate. You won't walk across the road, maybe I should thrown you into the traffic then.

.....

I'd go so far as to say that the 5,000 who stayed behind are cowards.

I think you reflect one element of the general British view on this subject.

To view the Irish and it's army as cowards hiding behind Britains coat-tails.

Not a view I would agree with, but, as stated at least you are honest about it.

In relation to the higher rates of pay in the British Army of that time this article may be informative :

http://www.forthesakeofexample.com/DeV%27s%20Treatment%20of%20Irish%20Deserters%20by%20Bernard%20Kelly%20History%20Ireland%20September%202011.pdf

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 9:50pm

Other - Please explain.

LordSutch wrote: »

Option One: Stay here & polish your old WWI rifle, shine you boots, do traffic duty (mostly herding sheep), help with ration control, then in the evenings listen to the Second World War unfold in all its horror on BBC Radio. (no risk to your life, but could you handle the guilt)?

Option Two: Join up with the massive allied force gathering in Britain & the continent, fight Hitler & the Nazi's, fight pure evil and be a part of the largest War effort the world had ever seen, do your part against the Nazi's (at the risk of being killed)!

Option Two for me please.

Then you face the legal consequences like a man, rather than spending sixty years whining about how you were temporarily banned from State employment as a result.

gbee · 07-01-2012 9:56pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Maoltuile wrote: »

It's a unique legal theory, certainly, I'll give you that. (Where do they get them from?)

Legal yes it certainly is.

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

Comments