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

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I have found the campaign website

http://www.forthesakeofexample.com/

I haven't been following this thread but CDfm did PM me the link to that particular site and asked me my opinion of it.

I don't think he'll mind if I post my response to it here.

I do find the constant references in the main text to 'de Valera's government' rather then the Irish government interesting. The implication being that this was a politically motivated move by Dev and a 'Cosgrave Government' (for example) would have acted differently.

It seems to me that they are suggesting that Dev's government acted out of anti-British sentiment and not because as a new State the government had to act against those who, having given a solemn oath to serve that new State, shrugged off it's authority. For the government of the day to ignore this challenge to it's authority would have been to undermine the whole foundation of an emerging State.

Their first set of links - re: Nazis in Ireland seems designed to suggest that the Irish authorities were 'Collaborators' with the Third Reich. When we know that in fact, Dev's government broke the spirit of neutrality by actively aiding the Allies (Donegal corridor, return of Allied airmen to GB etc).
The fact that some Nazis did 'retire' to Ireland is proven - and possibly shameful - but some Nazis (especially those involved in rocket development) also 'retired' to the US to work for NASA.
Much as I hate Nazis - if these men had not been convicted of a crime then I see no reason why they could not seek employment in a country against which they had not fought.

What sums it up the tone of this site for me though is the constant use of the qualifying term 'alleged' before the word deserters. These men were convicted before a court martial so their 'crime' is no longer alleged but a legal fact. The use of 'alleged' muddies the waters and implies that they may have been wrongly convicted as they may not have committed a crime.
I would imagine that the army had records pertaining to their enlistment. If they then 'left' without official sanction and joined the armed forces of another country (I assume there would be records of this 'new' enlistment too) that is technically desertion. No 'alleged' about it and the use of that term is disingenuous.

Or was it 'alleged' desertion because the Irish Army was not a 'proper' army therefore there could be no 'desertion'. Can one 'desert' from the IRA or Al Q?

I have sympathy for these men - and think given the exceptional circumstances they should be pardoned. After all - if GB fell it was only a matter of time before Ireland did. So technically, it could be argued that they were fighting to protect Irish independence.

That particular site, however, leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

CDfm

Thanks Bannasidhe, there is so much of what you say that I agree with.

I must say that I am very uneasy about the Campaign website and part of it is that as an Irish guy who worked in England it uses a lot of the same language that I associate with anti irish rhetoric from back in the day.

If there are reasons why those convicted should be "pardoned" then they are not given on the site.

I do not know what I was expecting on the campaign's website but I was not expecting the level of anti-Irish sentiment I found.

A.Tomas

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

THere is a big difference in the above and saying this

For a start using 'they' to ascribe a view of one man (Morgan) to the group of people (the deserters) which A. Thomas was referring to is misleading. Secondly Morgan referred to 60% of the general population, not the deserters.

From there it is a big jump to say that if someone wanted the Germans to win the war in 1939/40 that they were 'Nazis'. If quoted text "They got off lightly, and now want to portray those who did their duty as Nazis." is to be accepted then I think it needs more basis or clarification than that given. In the context which it was used I don't think that has been done. No mention of Morgan.

"if someone wanted the Germans to win the war in 1939/40 that they were 'Nazis'."

Well, it is pretty close.


"In the context which it was used I don't think that has been done."

The context is a BBC programme, I think, from my experience, that they do not have a layered or in anyway competent knowledge of Irish history, but a very benevolent and biased view of their own. So I do think it was an obnoxious remark to make.


With regard to others in the campaign, implying they were between poor (like everyone else), conspired against (apart from their punishment) and afraid to go out in public for fear of arrest! (like one man), it does not sound like they have any problem with what's being said on their behalf.

A.Tomas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread but CDfm did PM me the link to that particular site and asked me my opinion of it.

I don't think he'll mind if I post my response to it here.

I have to admit that the British nationalistic tone would colour my opinion of some of the men, that is that they'd want to be involved with these.

(Incidentally, Dev is probably the only Irish politician,many British back in the day have ever heard of. They probably blame him for breaking up their empire or something. He was part Spanish, he was a Catholic (instead of being in the Church of England) ... oh ... and he was the democratically elected leader of Ireland when they occupied the country and tried to kill off his elected government).

I remember a raving luny British loyalist from the north had a website that said that train tracks from Dublin to Belfast were made to direct German bombers! (as opposed to be for trains), and that the Irish govt were Nazis.

These guys, unfortunately seem similar, although I do agree with much of your response.

kabakuyu

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks Bannasidhe, there is so much of what you say that I agree with.

I must say that I am very uneasy about the Campaign website and part of it is that as an Irish guy who worked in England it uses a lot of the same language that I associate with anti irish rhetoric from back in the day.

If there are reasons why those convicted should be "pardoned" then they are not given on the site.

I do not know what I was expecting on the campaign's website but I was not expecting the level of anti-Irish sentiment I found.

I thought the website left a lot to be desired and does appear to have different agendas( not just the pardon for the men.), I can't help but find similiarites with this site http://markhumphrys.com/sfira.tyranny.html
I wonder if there is a crossover in the people involved in both sites.

CDfm

kabakuyu wrote: »

I thought the website left a lot to be desired and does appear to have different agendas( not just the pardon for the men.), I can't help but find similiarites with this site http://markhumphrys.com/sfira.tyranny.html
I wonder if there is a crossover in the people involved in both sites.

The politics isn't my bag , and really I was wary of bringing it up, my problem with the website is that it is not only historically incorrect but has more than a hint of anti-irishness about it.

Bannasidhe

kabakuyu wrote: »

I thought the website left a lot to be desired and does appear to have different agendas( not just the pardon for the men.), I can't help but find similiarites with this site http://markhumphrys.com/sfira.tyranny.html
I wonder if there is a crossover in the people involved in both sites.

There are marked similarities alright. I did laugh though at someone whose banner describes them as pro-American (I will tactfully ignore the pro-Israel notice as I haven't the interest or energy to engage in a Zionist Vs Palestinian flame war ) complaining about anyone supporting tyranny.... (*coff* Pinochet *coff*)

Dyr

Nooodles wrote: »

Initially sided with the Japanese?? You mean they changed sides at some point.

Your last comment is truly an eye opener, I would respond further but I'm a lady and I respect the rules of this forum.

Deary me. My grandfather was in the IRA during WW2, spent some of it in Jail. People could call him a traitor or a criminal and they would have a case, technically speaking. I'm a grown up so I can accept that. Same for goes you.

Bannasidhe

Bambi wrote: »

Deary me. My grandfather was in the IRA during WW2, spent some of it in Jail. People could call him a traitor or a criminal and they would have a case, technically speaking. I'm a grown up so I can accept that. Same for goes you.

Actually that's a good point re: IRA members interned during 'The Emergency'. I don't know very much about this area so did a quick wiki (I know...:( ):

The IRA and The Emergency

Main articles: Irish Republican Army (1922-1969) and Fifth column
In the early months of the emergency, the greatest threat to the State came from the IRA. In the Christmas Raid in 1939, one million rounds of ammunition were stolen from the Irish Army by the IRA (though it was mostly recovered in the following weeks)[13] and there were a number of killings, mostly of policemen.[14] In addition, the existing emergency legislation was undermined by the obtaining of a writ of habeas corpus by Seán MacBride which resulted in the release of all those who had been interned. The government responded with the 1939 and 1940 Offences Against the State Acts, which established the Special Criminal Court, and rearrested and interned IRA activists. A hunger strike was started in Mountjoy Prison in an attempt to gain political status, which collapsed after the death of two prisoners. In retaliation Dublin Castle was bombed and there were a number of serious incidents throughout the country.
The IRA fostered links with German intelligence (the Abwehr) and Foreign Ministry, with men such as Francis Stuart travelling to Germany to talk, though these attempts were largely ineffectual due to a combination of Abwehr and Foreign Ministry incompetence and IRA weakness.[15] Germans also came to Ireland, the most notable of whom was Hermann Görtz, who was captured in possession of "Plan Kathleen"- an IRA plan that detailed a German supported invasion of Northern Ireland. (See also: Irish Republican Army – Abwehr collaboration in World War II).
Two IRA men were executed for the murder of two policemen in September 1940, and the IRA became increasingly ineffective in the face of the resolute use of internment, the breaking of hunger strikes, and the application of hanging for capital offences. During 1941, the hope of a German invasion had faded and funding from the United States had been cut off. The IRA leadership were mostly interned within the Curragh Camp, where they were treated increasingly harshly, or on the run. Most internees accepted release on parole. The IRA remained barely active in Northern Ireland, but they were not a threat to the stability of Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(Ireland)#The_IRA_and_The_Emergency

What was/is now the legal status of these men? Given they were interned without trial did this mean there were no legal charges made against them? Was there ever a 'pardon' or apology issued by the State especially in light of Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."?

Edited to ask: Were all those interned men? What about women who were active Republicans? I'll have to dig out my box set of RTE's excellent Seven Ages and watch that episode again.

Now how the hell do I connect my 'conversation piece' retro chic VCR (conversation piece = to lazy to get rid of. Retro chic = old ) to the fancy TV?

Bannasidhe

A PARDON for thousands of Irish soldiers who deserted from the Defence Forces to fight for the Allies in the second World War is on the way, Minister for Defence Alan Shatter has indicated.

While the Minister awaits formal advice from Attorney General Máire Whelan about how to proceed, he has said he regards the dishonourable discharge of soldiers who left to fight for the Allies as untenable.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0125/1224310710060.html

Looks like they will get their pardons.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What was/is now the legal status of these men? Given they were interned without trial did this mean there were no legal charges made against them? Was there ever a 'pardon' or apology issued by the State especially in light of Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."?

Ooops did this apply from 1939 to 1945.

Rights were suspended following the declaration of the emergency.

I did a quick visit into the Military Forum where soldiers and former soldiers contribute.

Absent from the debate is any mention that the likes of General Mulcahy had totted up the numbers in the event of a civil war. This seems to have been appreciated by Churchill before he was PM

As Churchill predicted, de Valera opted for neutrality and denied the British access to the ports. In a letter to the Fist Sea Lord, Churchill claimed ‘three quarters of the people of Southern Ireland are with us, but the implacable, malignant minority can make so much trouble that de Valera dare not do anything to offend them http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship

Like it or not, the internal threat from the IRA was significant and the instability created by the desertions may well have contributed to the countries decision to stay neutral.

The Army which was really unprepared and not equipped for the events of 1939.

The political decisions and the state of the army were not mutually exclusive and the desertions have got to increased this. I just wonder if the politicians doubted the Army as a result of the desertions.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0125/1224310710060.html

Looks like they will get their pardons.

We may be declaring war on Germany yet, lets keep this all legal and above board

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

As Churchill predicted, de Valera opted for neutrality and denied the British access to the ports. In a letter to the Fist Sea Lord, Churchill claimed ‘three quarters of the people of Southern Ireland are with us, but the implacable, malignant minority can make so much trouble that de Valera dare not do anything to offend them http://www.winstonchurchill.org/supp...r-relationship
.

What on earth is the Fist Sea Lord? - Actually, I don't want to know...

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

We may be declaring war on Germany yet, lets keep this all legal and above board

Hypothetically speaking - say we declared war on Germany (:eek:) and some, say half, of the Irish in the British army allegedly deserted so they could come and fight for the Motherland against the Fatherland - so to speak- what do you reckon would be the reaction of the British authorities?

dubhthach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What on earth is the Fist Sea Lord? - Actually, I don't want to know...

Ποσειδῶν (Poseidon) -- gets coat!

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What on earth is the Fist Sea Lord? - Actually, I don't want to know...

The Head of the Royal Navy by comparison the Black Rod is a bit more suspect.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

Ποσειδῶν (Poseidon) -- gets coat!

Given Churchill wrote to him I think we can safely assume its not Manannán mac Lir perhaps it was Manannán's Welsh cousin Manawydan fab Llŷr.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

The Head of the Royal Navy by comparison the Black Rod is a bit more suspect.

I think a Fist Sea Lord might be on a par with Black Rod when it comes (childish snigger) to being suspect .

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think a Fist Sea Lord might be on a par with Black Rod when it comes (childish snigger) to being suspect .

Would they be members of the order of the garter ?

Fuinseog

I am not sure what motives those who seek a pardon have. There appears to be more to it that meets the eye and some folks advocating pardons really want to suggest that the deserters did the right thing, while only cowards
remained behind in neutral Ireland. Just like when the ' we should remember the Irish in all wars brigade' really only mean those who fought for Britain and not the wider world.
Most people have no problem with a pardon. its not really relevant, but if it undermines our neutrality then I for one have a problem with it.


from todays Indo.


Regarding the possible pardon of deserters from the Irish Defence Forces during World War Two recently announced by Defence Minister Alan Shatter: The most pertinent question we should ask ourselves is who do we pardon? The argument in favour seems to suggest that any Irish soldier who subsequently joined the British forces should be pardoned.

However, this point ignores the fact that not all of the deserters actually joined up again. Many left for higher-paying jobs in the labour-hungry British war industry. Do they deserve to be pardoned?

And, if not, does that mean that their contribution to the Allied victory is less than those who fought in the front line? We should not forget that some Irish soldiers simply deserted and went home to their families.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is the issue of the Local Defence Force. Irish military documents of the time show that the LDF's effective strength was far below its paper strength for the duration of the war. The authorities had little doubt that the majority of these missing men had left for the UK. Are they to be pardoned also?

We also need to be wary of projecting our values backwards in time to a period where they do not fit.

The pardon campaign revolves around the fact that the deserters joined the fight against Nazism -- that their contribution to the greater good outweighs their guilt for desertion.

I question whether this debate would even be taking place if thousands of Irish soldiers deserted and joined the Wehrmacht. We must be careful that we do not turn World War Two into a one-dimensional crusading conflict.

Finally, we need to understand Emergency Powers Order 362 in the context of the time. Dismissing the deserters from the Defence Forces was a way for De Valera to deal with them quickly and quietly. Enormous damage had been done to Ireland's international image by neutrality, the American Note and De Valera's visit to the German Legation in 1945. It can well be imagined that he was eager to avoid further negative publicity which would have resulted from prosecuting deserters.

The military context also needs to be considered. However ridiculous it appears to modern observers, the chiefs of staff reports throughout the Emergency make clear that the Irish military seriously considered a British invasion of Ireland a possibility. From their point of view, deserters were weakening the Defence Forces at a time of national emergency and joining the forces of a possible invader.

I have no hesitation in lauding the achievements of any Irish members of the Allied forces during the World War Two, but the deserter issue is one that needs to be very carefully considered.

Bernard Kelly
School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh

Irish Independent

A.Tomas

Fuinseog wrote: »

I am not sure what motives those who seek a pardon have. There appears to be more to it that meets the eye and some folks advocating pardons really want to suggest that the deserters did the right thing, while only cowards
remained behind in neutral Ireland. Just like when the ' we should remember the Irish in all wars brigade' really only mean those who fought for Britain and not the wider world.
Most people have no problem with a pardon. its not really relevant, but if it undermines our neutrality then I for one have a problem with it.


from todays Indo.


Regarding the possible pardon of deserters from the Irish Defence Forces during World War Two recently announced by Defence Minister Alan Shatter: The most pertinent question we should ask ourselves is who do we pardon? The argument in favour seems to suggest that any Irish soldier who subsequently joined the British forces should be pardoned.

However, this point ignores the fact that not all of the deserters actually joined up again. Many left for higher-paying jobs in the labour-hungry British war industry. Do they deserve to be pardoned?

And, if not, does that mean that their contribution to the Allied victory is less than those who fought in the front line? We should not forget that some Irish soldiers simply deserted and went home to their families.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is the issue of the Local Defence Force. Irish military documents of the time show that the LDF's effective strength was far below its paper strength for the duration of the war. The authorities had little doubt that the majority of these missing men had left for the UK. Are they to be pardoned also?

We also need to be wary of projecting our values backwards in time to a period where they do not fit.

The pardon campaign revolves around the fact that the deserters joined the fight against Nazism -- that their contribution to the greater good outweighs their guilt for desertion.

I question whether this debate would even be taking place if thousands of Irish soldiers deserted and joined the Wehrmacht. We must be careful that we do not turn World War Two into a one-dimensional crusading conflict.

Finally, we need to understand Emergency Powers Order 362 in the context of the time. Dismissing the deserters from the Defence Forces was a way for De Valera to deal with them quickly and quietly. Enormous damage had been done to Ireland's international image by neutrality, the American Note and De Valera's visit to the German Legation in 1945. It can well be imagined that he was eager to avoid further negative publicity which would have resulted from prosecuting deserters.

The military context also needs to be considered. However ridiculous it appears to modern observers, the chiefs of staff reports throughout the Emergency make clear that the Irish military seriously considered a British invasion of Ireland a possibility. From their point of view, deserters were weakening the Defence Forces at a time of national emergency and joining the forces of a possible invader.

I have no hesitation in lauding the achievements of any Irish members of the Allied forces during the World War Two, but the deserter issue is one that needs to be very carefully considered.

Bernard Kelly
School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh

Irish Independent

Brilliant letter!

There are few like it that are printed in the Indo.

He obviously is not using the same emotive tactic, and presenting inaccurate information and then putting it out of context, like those in favour are.

Shame people who actually know a bit about history (like the letter writer clearly does) are always pushed to the side in these debates.


"The military context also needs to be considered. However ridiculous it appears to modern observers, the chiefs of staff reports throughout the Emergency make clear that the Irish military seriously considered a British invasion of Ireland a possibility. From their point of view, deserters were weakening the Defence Forces at a time of national emergency and joining the forces of a possible invader."


Absolutely! I will not accept that Irish freedom is less important that Britain's right to occupy other countries. (or attempt to)

Fratton Fred

A few years back there was a campaign to pardon all those "Shot at Dawn" for desertion in WWI. The argument was that many were suffering from Post traumatic shock, or shell shock and were not in control of their decision making.

This probably applied to the majority, but all were pardoned regardless.

The vogue seems to be to look back and forgive en mass, so I guess that is kind of what is happening here.

I have to admit, I am surprised at the weight this campaign has, but I do know of people who are the daughters of men who went to fight and still see this as deeply hurtful.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have to admit, I am surprised at the weight this campaign has, but I do know of people who are the daughters of men who went to fight and still see this as deeply hurtful.

which is why some media reports speak of 'those who left the Irish army' instead of the ugly and unpalatable word 'deserted'.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have to admit, I am surprised at the weight this campaign has, but I do know of people who are the daughters of men who went to fight and still see this as deeply hurtful.

I find my country being depicted as nazi loving anti semites deeply hurtful

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

I find my country being depicted as nazi loving anti semites deeply hurtful

Believe me, I can totally appreciate how deeply annoying having your country criticised can feel.

Ignore the people with obvious agendas.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Believe me, I can totally appreciate how deeply annoying having your country criticised can feel.

Ignore the people with obvious agendas.

Fred, this is not pointed at you, but the language and examples of the campaign are very much the language of anti-irish racism that I & other experienced .

And this is a history forum , DeV and Churchill appreciated it , and Margaret Thatcher had to learn about it & grapple with it when she came to power.

Its only been tackled in the UK in the recent past, so why go there ?

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Fred, this is not pointed at you, but the language and examples of the campaign are very much the language of anti-irish racism that I & other experienced .

And this is a history forum , DeV and Churchill appreciated it , and Margaret Thatcher had to learn about it & grapple with it when she came to power.

Its only been tackled in the UK in the recent past, so why go there ?

I think you are over reacting.

Sure, there elements that are enjoying having a go at the Irish, but that is to be expected.

Overall though, I think the campaign itself just wants the pardon. Don't forget, these people are Irish as well.

I will add though, I am yet to be convinced that they should get a pardon.

A.Tomas

Great letter by Tommy Graham of History Ireland in Irish Times. Another good letter in todays Indo.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224310808205

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-pardon-3002140.html

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you are over reacting.

Sure, there elements that are enjoying having a go at the Irish, but that is to be expected.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I will refer you to a certain Mr J Lydon,an aesthete, who wrote a treatise on the subject .

http://www.amazon.com/Rotten-No-Irish-Blacks-Dogs/dp/031211883X

Overall though, I think the campaign itself just wants the pardon. Don't forget, these people are Irish as well.

I will add though, I am yet to be convinced that they should get a pardon.

I am tolerant of the other traditions and heritages in Ireland but even if I were not the history used is not factual and the campaign is goebbelesque.

Fuinseog

A.Tomas wrote: »

Great letter by Tommy Graham of History Ireland in Irish Times. Another good letter in todays Indo.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224310808205

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-pardon-3002140.html

Does The Times also publish letters that argues against a pardon?