Alan Shatter doing his job!!!

Cody Pomeray

I would also ask you again, jawgap, and you too wileycoyote

Is it your position that Ireland could have credibly or responsibly sat back, not increased its defences, and do SFA during the Emergency?

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But don't you see, what we say now, in hindsight, is less relevant.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether Ireland was, in hindsight, a realistic target for a pre-emptive British invasion as Iceland was. I think that clouds the clear issue.

The clear issue is that in the midst of the emergency, it was the military perception, the official perception, and the public perception, that Ireland was open and vulnerable to an attack.

We should not be judging the 4,500 deserters with 2013 hindsight. We should be judging those men for doing what they did while under the belief that Ireland was vulnerable - and most outrageously - vulnerable, in part, to the army to which they were defecting.

Yes, we should judge them by their actions - instead of waiting passively to be attacked, these 4,500 men, in the best traditions of the Irish infantry and cavalry who went before them, captured and held ground, identified the enemy, closed with them, and destroyed them by fire and manoeuver.

Also by your logic, lads who fell asleep while at post in WWI or who suffered shell shock during the same period should not be pardoned posthumously? After all, strictly speaking, they were guilty of what were then capital offences.

Times change, attitudes change and as supposedly mature liberal democracy we should be able to look back and say, "you know what, we (as in the State) were wrong - and even though it's only a token we are going to correct that wrong by apologising and recognising that a positive contribution was made that was not properly recognised at the time."

LordSutch

Shatter/Higgins are doing the right thing.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, we should judge them by their actions - instead of waiting passively to be attacked, these 4,500 men, in the best traditions of the Irish infantry and cavalry who went before them, captured and held ground, identified the enemy, closed with them, and destroyed them by fire and manoeuver.[/I]

That's not very sound logical approach though. Not least because the forces they joined were considered a potential enemy. As well as that pretty stark fact:

The Irish deserters who defected across were 0.006% of the Allied forces in WWII, presumably few reached officer rank, and were scattered all about the globe.

In Ireland, they made up 10% of the army dedicated to the Irish territory - and realistically - defending it post invasion.

I know which I think is the more realistic tactical advantage.

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would also ask you again, jawgap, and you too wileycoyote

Is it your position that Ireland could have credibly or responsibly sat back, not increased its defences, and do SFA during the Emergency?

i think I've answered that a least twice.....

Who was going to invade us? The Brits lacked the will politically and the means militarily - there was no way they were seizing the country the same way they did Iceland with a battalion of poorly equipped marines. And even they wanted to and even if they had a Corps or two lying around to complete the operation they weren't going to do so for fear of alienating the US.

Incidentally, if the Brits were going to invade us why did they supply among other things - a reserve radio transmitter, four 18-pounders (in 1941), 26 Vickers Universal Carriers, 30 Beaverette Scout Cars as well as various bits of AA artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns and amunition galore.

It might also be worth noting that the authorised establishment for the Army was just shy of 50,000 but LTG McKenna, the Chief of Staff, never felt compelled to expand the force beyond 40,000 and even after late 1940 it was let decline slightly - which, along with the slide in procurement, kind of suggests that by the autumn of 1940 the perception that the threat had passed was well rooted

The Germans lacked the capacity militarily - they were a continental army with no tradition of seaborne or amphibious operations, leaving aside the none too important fact that they lacked the equipment to project a force across several hundred kilometers of ocean, land it and keep it supplied in the face of even modest counter attacks.

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not very sound logical approach though. Not least because the forces they joined were considered a potential enemy. As well as that pretty stark fact:

The Irish deserters who defected across were 0.006% of the Allied forces in WWII, presumably few reached officer rank, and were scattered all about the globe.

In Ireland, they made up 10% of the army dedicated to the Irish territory - and realistically - defending it post invasion.

I know which I think is the more realistic tactical advantage.

Really, because everything I've read suggests that the Allied Forces were definitely not a potential enemy and not regarded as such (except by some politicians).....but I presume you can cite a relevant primary source that shows the Irish military and security establishment at the time regarded the Commonwealth, British or Allied forces as potentially hostile invaders?

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

i think I've answered that a least twice.....

Who was going to invade us? The Brits lacked the will politically and the means militarily

Yet they invaded neutral Iceland. Only 5 of the 22 neutral countries avoided invasion.

Answer the question with a simple answer: was Ireland simply wrong to increase its security and defence arrangements during WWII?

If you were around in 1940, would you be saying "Neutral Ireland should do absolutely nothing"?

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yet they invaded neutral Iceland. Only 5 of the 22 neutral countries avoided invasion.

Answer the question with a simple answer: was Ireland simply wrong to increase its security and defence arrangements during WWII?

If you were around in 1940, would you be saying "Neutral Ireland should do absolutely nothing"?

At the time, no they were not wrong - it was a rational response to the threat as it was perceived. But the procurement, the planning and the posture of the Army all indicate that the Germans were regarded as the threat. The British, despite the political rhetoric on both sides, were not regarded as potential enemies.

The Order of Battle for the Army in late 1940 shows that Eastern Command was concentrated around Dublin - only in late 1941 were some elements of Command HQ dispersed to Dundalk.

2nd Division was headquartered at Maynooth, but its consituent brigades were headquartered in Dublin, Mullingar and Kilkenny. 1st Division was based around Cork (Div HQ), Clonmel and Limerick. Curragh Command had only one brigade stationed outside Kildare - the 5th at Killkenny which was designated as the strategic reserve.

Eastern Command also only had two artillery batteries, something that might be regarded as strange considering that if the Brits were seen as potential invaders then the likely axis of advance would have been straight down Eastern Command's throat. Southern Command had 3 batteries, and Western Command had 3 - at Mullingar so I suppose available to Eastern Command, but not under their operational control.

Given the weight of forces deployed in the south and south east of the country, the location of the strategic reserves, and the lack of forces in the north (a single infantry brigade centred on Sligo) and around the border, who do you think the Army thought was more likely to have to fight against?

Of course, maybe they were not so much worried about the Germans as about the Welsh Guards crossing St George's Channel:)

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yet they invaded neutral Iceland. Only 5 of the 22 neutral countries avoided invasion.

Answer the question with a simple answer: was Ireland simply wrong to increase its security and defence arrangements during WWII?

If you were around in 1940, would you be saying "Neutral Ireland should do absolutely nothing"?

by the way, the "invasion" of Iceland was a few hundred Royal Marines with badly drawn maps, no transport or air cover landing on a lightly inhabited island with no stand army and nothing to offer the Allies except land for basing and a few fish.

and of the 5 countries who avoided invasion and / or occupation, at least two covertly (and sometimes not so covertly) provided troops or training in support of the Allies.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

At the time, no they were not wrong - it was a rational response to the threat as it was perceived. But the procurement, the planning and the posture of the Army all indicate that the Germans were regarded as the threat. The British, despite the political rhetoric on both sides, were not regarded as potential enemies.

I disagree, but I think there's a more crucial point here.

You say that the Irish authorities "were not wrong" in their "rational response to the threat as it was perceived".

So on the one hand, you're accepting that there was a perception of Irish vulnerability - and on the other hand, you're praising Irishmen who left their posts and made numerically irrelevant contributions to foreign armies, protecting foreign countries, while causing the Irish defence forces a substantial blow in numbers.

How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?

Every man who defected to fight in Egypt, or Italy, or Burma was one less guerilla fighter for his own forces, one less fighter for the state's first experience of coming face to face with defending its own sovereign independence. This happened not just once, but 4,500 over.

How can you defend this utterly unacceptable level of desertion?

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I disagree, but I think there's a more crucial point here.

You say that the Irish authorities "were not wrong" in their "rational response to the threat as it was perceived".

So on the one hand, you're accepting that there was a perception of Irish vulnerability - and on the other hand, you're praising Irishmen who left their posts and made numerically irrelevant contributions to foreign armies, protecting foreign countries, while causing the Irish defence forces a substantial blow in numbers.

How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?

Every man who defected to fight in Egypt, or Italy, or Burma was one less guerilla fighter for his own forces, one less fighter for the state's first experience of coming face to face with defending its own sovereign independence. This happened not just once, but 4,500 over.

How can you defend this utterly unacceptable level of desertion?

Easily......

.....but if you take the time to read back you'll see that I think these guys deserve an apology not because they went and fought for the Allies, but because they were denied the right to state their case, be heard and appeal the decisions.

The Constitution that came into force in 1937 talks about equality before the law; and other such trivialities....such as "Military tribunals may be established for the trial of offences against military law alleged to have been committed by persons while subject to military law"

I can't see the bit that says ".....except if you serve in a foreign military."

Interestingly too, the Irish authorities during the War did not actively seek the return or extradition of the 'deserters' - if their 'crime' was so heinous you'd wonder why?

EURATS

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How can you defend this utterly unacceptable level of desertion?

Because they are pro British?(Also soft handed towards defence force desertion during an emergency).

They have short memories and have long forgiven the British for their occupation, interference and murder in our country.

The nazis, British, US etc were/are all power hungry nations looking to dictate to and control the world. The British and US(and so far non militarily the Germans) continue this trend as we speak.

The allies may have been a lesser of two evils(from the version of history we have been given) but both sides were equally qualified in murder and destruction.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Easily......

.....but if you take the time to read back you'll see that I think these guys deserve an apology not because they went and fought for the Allies, but because they were denied the right to state their case, be heard and appeal the decisions.

You answered the question ("How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?") with "easily".

But then you didn't go on to square it.

You departed for another point.

I'm happy enough to debate with you the relevant aspects of constitutional law and the extradition of these soldiers in a moment, perhaps, but can you supply an answer to the question beyond "easily"?

tomtucker81

I personally believe that no amount of soldiers in the Irish army would have repelled an invasion by the British, US or Germans at the time.
As it was the US and Britain wanted our ports (namely cork) and had little interest in the rest of the land at the time.
The Germans had interest in invading outright, but focused on Britain instead.

I believe that these men who deserted the Irish army did so to fight for the allied forces, and take an active part in the war and to defeat Nazi Germany. While yes it is an offence to desert, their motives surely far outweigh any damage caused? Bearing in mind, as I said, that the army could not have repelled an invasion by any of the involved armies at the time, and to say they could have is simply ridiculous.

R P McMurphy

tomtucker81 wrote: »

I personally believe that no amount of soldiers in the Irish army would have repelled an invasion by the British, US or Germans at the time.
As it was the US and Britain wanted our ports (namely cork) and had little interest in the rest of the land at the time.
The Germans had interest in invading outright, but focused on Britain instead.

I believe that these men who deserted the Irish army did so to fight for the allied forces, and take an active part in the war and to defeat Nazi Germany. While yes it is an offence to desert, their motives surely far outweigh any damage caused? Bearing in mind, as I said, that the army could not have repelled an invasion by any of the involved armies at the time, and to say they could have is simply ridiculous.

Of course the irish army at the time could not have repelled an invasion. A military victory would have been swift for the potential aggressor but that would only have been half of the story. Holding the territory against guerilla attacks, which the irish had refined two decades previously, would have been the other half.

Cody Pomeray

tomtucker81 wrote: »

I personally believe that no amount of soldiers in the Irish army would have repelled an invasion by the British, US or Germans at the time.

Nobody has contested their inability to prevent an invasion. This has never been credibly denied since the emergency, and the more pragmatic approach to Irish defence was eloquently defined by James Dillon in 1938:

The primary problem of defence in this country is what we would do if our territory were threatened by a foreign invader. I would be very much obliged to the Minister for Defence if he would tell us now what is the general policy of the Government in that contingency.

Is it to resist invasion? Is it to build up armaments here which would give an invader a formidable fight before he got in, because, speaking purely as a citizen and as one inexperienced in military technique, I submit that is an entirely unattainable objective and that our attitude before the world should be that we have no desire to invade any country, that we have no desire to acquire any territory, that with our resources.

We are not in a position to resist any invader who proposes to enter our territory, but that we fix all and sundry with notice that no matter how powerful they are, if they invade Ireland they embark, not on a 100 years war, but on a 700 years war, if necessary, and fix them with notice also that we were invaded by Britain in the year 1172 and that though it took some time to get them out, we shifted them finally in 1921.

Accordingly, we should inform them that if anybody wants to invade us in 1938, we do not propose to bluff or pretend for a moment that we have resources effectively to resist the modern army of a powerful State, but that by invading us they start a 700 years war, that we will start mobilising the Irish race from one end of the world to the other, that we will use our immense spiritual empire all over the world to assail them from every quarter we can and that we are prepared to take our chances in the long run.

It may take time, it may involve suffering, but by the time they have digested us they will have indigestion, and they will be well advised not to undertake the invasion of this country at all.

The notion that Ireland was capable of self defence in open combat is not required.

But this was a country that was 18 years old, and should have had plenty of other of 18 year olds willing to fight for it against the threat of tyranny or invasion of its territory, and its independence. This would have been undertaken through guerrilla warfare.

At the moment when our sovereignty was being tested, when the continent had formulated a challenge for us to answer, 10% of our army deserted this island for faraway beaches and faraway countries.

I'm not begrudging the men their pardon. It doesn't affect me. But what I do object to is any suggestion that these men were morally justified in what they did.

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You answered the question ("How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?") with "easily".

But then you didn't go on to square it.

You departed for another point.

I'm happy enough to debate with you the relevant aspects of constitutional law and the extradition of these soldiers in a moment, perhaps, but can you supply an answer to the question beyond "easily"?

Soldiers are compelled to answer 3 questions any time they are planning an operation or carrying out an order.....

.....can I? (The legal question)

....must I? (The operational question)

...should I? (The ethical question)

Ethically, morally and operationally these guys did the right thing, legally they didn't - that doesn't absolve the government of the day or allow them to impose unjust, disproportionate and arbitrary punishments.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Soldiers are compelled to answer 3 questions any time they are planning an operation or carrying out an order.....

By whom?

That sounds like absolutely unworkable guff to me, personally. It completely undermines the notion of military operations in a way which no army on the face of the Earth could or should tolerate.

Do you ever intend on answering my question or are you going to ignore it?

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

By whom?

That sounds like absolutely unworkable guff to me, personally. It completely undermines the notion of military operations in a way which no army on the face of the Earth could or should tolerate.

Do you ever intend on answering my question or are you going to ignore it?

You call it "unworkable guff" - I picked it up from a captain who served 3 tours in Afghanistan with the Gurkhas!!!

And what question have I supposedly not answered?

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

You call it "unworkable guff" - I picked it up from a captain who served 3 tours in Afghanistan with the Gurkhas!!!

Yeah sure, lets see anyone try that one on their superior officers in any military anywhere. Don't be ridiculous, soldiers are compelled to carry out orders in line with international law, not ask themselves "should I?"

The question you didn't answer is visible above.

You answered the question ("How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?") with "easily".

But then you didn't expand on it with any credible response apart from saying "easily".

How do you rationalize the above point in your mind?

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yeah sure, lets see anyone try that one on their superior officers in any military anywhere. Don't be ridiculous, soldiers are compelled to carry out orders in line with international law, not ask themselves "should I?"

The question you didn't answer is visible above.

You answered the question ("How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?") with "easily".

But then you didn't expand on it with any credible response apart from saying "easily".

How do you rationalize the above point in your mind?

Well his commanding officer was Major Shaun Chandler and the two of them have co-authored a number of COIN articles and do joint consulting work so I'm guessing his boss was ok with that approach - and his battalion commander (Lt Col Strickland) has lent his name to some of his writing so I'm guessing he's ok with having an officer under his command follow that approach.


The reason I am able to reconcile what they did is because it was morally courageous, and that's something that should be prized in a soldier - the character to do what's right, rather than what's easy or popular.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Well his commanding officer was Major Shaun Chandler and the two of them have co-authored a number of COIN articles and do joint consulting work so I'm guessing his boss was ok with that approach - and his battalion commander (Lt Col Strickland) has lent his name to some of his writing so I'm guessing he's ok with having an officer under his command follow that approach.


The reason I am able to reconcile what they did is because it was morally courageous, and that's something that should be prized in a soldier - the character to do what's right, rather than what's easy or popular.

As fascinating as that biography was, I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer" then.

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

As fascinating as that biography was, I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer" then.

Yet again I've answered it, but lets just leave it - you have your opinion I have mine and this has progressed beyond tedious.........

......I suspect anything I write will not be accepted or acceptable as an answer.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Yet again I've answered it, but lets just leave it - you have your opinion I have mine and this has progressed beyond tedious.........

......I suspect anything I write will not be accepted or acceptable as an answer.

I asked you how you can admit that there was understood to be a threat of invasion, and at the same time praise these men for having deserted their posts?

And then you go off on some tangent about some Lieutenant you met who filled you with some old blather about "the ethical issue", as if any army in the world would accept that defence in a deserter.

Not to mention the fact that you're apportioning ethical considerations to the Irish deserters when there is presumably nothing informing you of that.

Seanchai

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you feel this is an appropriate punishment for desertion, we don't have enough common ground for an intelligent conversation on the issue, frankly.

First, spare us this Shatter-like conceit about "intelligent conversation" - because neither you nor he have displayed anything approaching rationality or historical accuracy on this issue.

Some historical facts. They were traitors to this state. They took an oath to defend it and they broke it. They broke this oath not for heroic reasons but largely because pay was far greater in the British forces, a fact which Shatter typically ignored when trying to portray these self-serving people as heroes. The financial aspect of their decision is persistently whitewashed by people who feign a desire for "intelligent conversation".

Given this context the Irish state's treatment was generous. In WW I when people deserted the British state's forces during wartime they were taken out and executed. No debate. Instructively, the anti-Irish types astutely avoid criticism of the British state when it defended its sovereignty and took action against those who threatened it. When the Irish state does far less to its own deserters during wartime, then the complaints begin.

Only a Fine Gael government could have the required intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland to portray these cowards as heroes. A further example of this attitude is in the current campaign of Fine Gael's Brian Hayes to re-erect monuments to British imperial heroes in the Phoenix Park.

Seanchai

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They left a corrupt bananna pretend country ..those men were heroes

And this succinctly sums up the sheer prejudice of the haters of a sovereign Irish state. Everything done for British nationalist/imperialist interests = good; everything done for Irish nationalist interests = bad.

Zambia

Excellent work wait till they are all dead then say sorry, on the face of it I don't see any huge case of treason involved.

They were young men who were trained to fight and wanted to. There was was a fight going on and they wanted in.

SeanW

Seanchai wrote: »

Only a Fine Gael government could have the required intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland to portray these "cowards" as heroes.

If you genuinely think that people who went to the front lines of WWII at great risk to life and limb to fight the Nazis were "cowards" then I have to agree with oscarBravo. There doesn't seem to be much common ground for a reasoned debate.

Cody Pomeray

SeanW wrote: »

If you genuinely think that people who went to the front lines of WWII at great risk to life and limb to fight the Nazis were "cowards" then I have to agree with oscarBravo. There doesn't seem to be much common ground for a reasoned debate.

Well I would agree with you on the cowards issue.

But then an attempt to ascribe benevolent motivations to these men is just as intellectually gullible.

As honourable as anti-Fascism is, there is absolutely nothing to show that these men deserted out of anti-Fascism.

Congratulating someone for a motivation you do not know they had is about as thick as it gets.

oscarBravo

Seanchai wrote: »

[The present government has an] intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland...

Like I said, no basis for an intelligent conversation.