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

Morlar · 06-01-2012 1:27pm #1

This subject has recieved much coverage recently.

In Ireland during WW2 approx 5,000 Irish Army soldiers deserted the Irish Army and joined the ranks of the British Army.

At war's end the penalty for desertion from the Irish State on their return was

a) to be barred from STATE funded employment for a period of 7 years
b) loss of financial benefits accrued during pre-desertion service.

The campaign for pardoning these men has met with some success and much emotive & sympathetic (if controversial) media coverage.

I am aware there is already a thread on this subject in WW2 & H&H & a LOT of other military related forums on the web but was wondering what the verdict here would be ?

Simple poll, options as fair and impartial as possible.

RMD · 06-01-2012 2:15pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Depends on their reason for desertification. If they left due to being in trouble in our own army then no, if they left due to wanting to fight the Nazis then yes. I'd consider deserting in order to fight against the Nazis is a pardonable reason.

Manach · 06-01-2012 3:01pm

Other - Please explain.

No to a pardon. They both deserted their comrades in arms, who laboured under difficult conditions to preserve the Irish state during the Emergency, and they broke their oaths to serve.

cruasder777 · 06-01-2012 4:42pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Manach wrote: »

No to a pardon. They both deserted their comrades in arms, who laboured under difficult conditions to preserve the Irish state during the Emergency, and they broke their oaths to serve.

You mean they were the ones who did the fighting for the freedom of their comrades and country, while others stayed at home. "Laboured at home", I would hardly call fighting in WW2 the easier option.

The Irish state was preserved because others fought.

They should have been disiplined.

But stopping them from earning a living punished their families, that was vindictive.

cyrusdvirus · 06-01-2012 4:44pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

I, voted yes, but on reflection would echo RMD's thoughts, that it would be a conditional pardon, once they joined up with allied forces.

gizmo555 · 06-01-2012 6:41pm

Other - Please explain.

cruasder777 wrote: »

You mean they were the ones who did the fighting for the freedom of their comrades and country, while others stayed at home. "Laboured at home", I would hardly call fighting in WW2 the easier option.

That's a pretty simplistic and facile comment.

The soldiers who enlisted in the Irish army to defend this country in WWII did an effective job and deserve our respect and thanks.

The Irish men and women who decided instead to enlist in Allied armed forces are equally deserving of respect for the service they gave and sacrifices they made.

However, deserters are a different kettle of fish - they dishonoured the oaths they took and the commitments they freely gave, knowing in advance that there would be consequences. I don't see any reason for a pardon, either in the immediate aftermath of the war or now.

Delancey · 06-01-2012 10:15pm

Other - Please explain.

A huge amount of nonsense and hyperbole surrounds this issue.

These deserters got off lightly - none were imprisoned , they were prohibited from taking up Public Sector jobs for 7 years and they lost their army pension rights - whats the big deal ? In many other countries they could have expected much more severe punishment up to and including a firing squad.

Lets look at the US today where someone with a dishonourable discharge has virtually no chance of ever working for the Federal Government , not to mention that many State and private sector employers look askance at them. A dishonourable discharge also means the subject loses virtually all ( if indeed not all ) their benefits like treatment at VA hospitals , etc.
Viewed in these circumstances I would suggest these Irish Army deserters were punished leniently for the time.

The story of a 92 year old who still lives in fear of the ' knock on the door ' is pure emotive crap - he knows as well as everyone else that it is long forgotten. BBC did a programme recently on this subject and as such was targetted at a British audience that would instinctively be more sympathetic.

Equating these men with those ' shot at dawn ' in WW1 is disingenous and disrespectful to those executed.

Turbine · 06-01-2012 10:28pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Irish state was preserved because others fought.

Don't be so naive. Britain had plans to invade Ireland to use its ports, just like Germany. The only reason they didn't was because of pressure from America.

Zambia · 07-01-2012 12:41am

Other - Please explain.

Am oath is an oath they took it they should have lived up to it. True courage is standing by what you believe in.

cruasder777 · 07-01-2012 2:16am

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's a pretty simplistic and facile comment.

The soldiers who enlisted in the Irish army to defend this country in WWII did an effective job and deserve our respect and thanks.

The Irish men and women who decided instead to enlist in Allied armed forces are equally deserving of respect for the service they gave and sacrifices they made.

However, deserters are a different kettle of fish - they dishonoured the oaths they took and the commitments they freely gave, knowing in advance that there would be consequences. I don't see any reason for a pardon, either in the immediate aftermath of the war or now.

I said the state had every right to discipline them and get it over with, the state had no right to let their children starve by not allowing their fathers to work or get any welfare, that was nasty and unconsitutional, they deserve an apology, the state had no right to punish children for what their Fathers did.

I read an article by someone who wrote about the hunger and poverty they grew up in due to a vindictive state.

cruasder777 · 07-01-2012 2:17am

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Turbine wrote: »

Don't be so naive. Britain had plans to invade Ireland to use its ports, just like Germany. The only reason they didn't was because of pressure from America.

Get real, you live in a free world thanks to the actions of the allies.

If other nations had taken the republics stance Germany would have won the war.

Zambia · 07-01-2012 4:25am

Other - Please explain.

cruasder777 wrote: »

I said the state had every right to discipline them and get it over with, the state had no right to let their children starve by not allowing their fathers to work or get any welfare, that was nasty and unconsitutional, they deserve an apology, the state had no right to punish children for what their Fathers did.

I read an article by someone who wrote about the hunger and poverty they grew up in due to a vindictive state.

The way I read it is they lost the right to work for the state and the right to pension built up while serving.

It did not say all state benefits

neilled · 07-01-2012 10:09am

Other - Please explain.

Turbine wrote: »

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Irish state was preserved because others fought.

Don't be so naive. Britain had plans to invade Ireland to use its ports, just like Germany. The only reason they didn't was because of pressure from America.

The USA would have invaded should it have believed it would have served their strategic interests.

PeterIanStaker · 07-01-2012 2:24pm

The only "winners" in this debate will be the cringy self hating Irish media and their continuing project to criminalise this country's independence, by using this and similar issues, as political footballs to score points, and labelling anyone who contradicts them as "republicans", "subversives" etc. Same old bull5hit, expect them to layer it on leading up to 2016.

These people in the media, the likes of Myers, Harris, Dudley - Edwards etc, dont give a rat's ass about the Irishmen in either World War - they're only using them as a plank with which to attack independent Ireland. And I think they're beating a dead horse to be honest, seeing as the country lost its independence/sovereignity when the IMF stepped in.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 2:29pm

Other - Please explain.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Get real, you live in a free world thanks to the actions of the allies.

If other nations had taken the republics stance Germany would have won the war.

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

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

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

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 2:31pm

Other - Please explain.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

These people in the media, the likes of Myers, Harris, Dudley - Edwards etc, dont give a rat's ass about the Irishmen in either World War - they're only using them as a plank with which to attack independent Ireland. And I think they're beating a dead horse to be honest, seeing as the country lost its independence/sovereignity when the IMF stepped in.

Absolutely right. It's no coincidence that the Indo media types beating the drum loudest on this are the same who are dead set against any commemoration of 1916 etc.

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2012 2:51pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

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

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

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

Re: Highlighted part - you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Von Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact of 1939 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hitler-stalin-pact.

Secondly it is not as cut and dried as ' Desertion in time of war' as the Irish Free State was not technically in a state of war. One cannot declare both neutrality and a State of war at the same time. It was a state of emergency.

Also if you read some of the recent work on the actions of the Irish authorities you would see that the Free State was 'neutral on the side of the Allies' (see http://www.csn.ul.ie/~dan/war/bene.htm for an out line of the policy of Benevolent Neutrality).

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 3:22pm

Other - Please explain.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Re: Highlighted part - you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Von Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact of 1939 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hitler-stalin-pact.

I fail to see your point. Other pacts (even Versailles) were widely ignored, you may note, and the Nazi and Soviet systems were naturally antagonistic.

Secondly it is not as cut and dried as ' Desertion in time of war' as the Irish Free State was not technically in a state of war. One cannot declare both neutrality and a State of war at the same time. It was a state of emergency.

It certainly was a time of war. We faced a very real threat of invasion from any of three of the major powers in the war - Britain, Germany or the US (from GI troops in the North).

Also if you read some of the recent work on the actions of the Irish authorities you would see that the Free State was 'neutral on the side of the Allies' (see http://www.csn.ul.ie/~dan/war/bene.htm for an out line of the policy of Benevolent Neutrality).

Irrelevant. That Éire went in for some limited cooperation certainly didn't cool the enthusiasms of Churchill, Gray or the Northern Ireland government for war against this country.

civdef · 07-01-2012 3:27pm

Have deserters from the British armed forces during WW2 received a blanket pardon?

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 3:36pm

Other - Please explain.

civdef wrote: »

Have deserters from the British armed forces during WW2 received a blanket pardon?

A question that the BBC ought to be asked the next time it sticks its beak in during its campaign is what are the consequences that face British Army deserters who objected to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars?

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2012 3:48pm

Maoltuile wrote: »

I fail to see your point. Other pacts (even Versailles) were widely ignored, you may note, and the Nazi and Soviet systems were naturally antagonistic.

It certainly was a time of war. We faced a very real threat of invasion from any of three of the major powers in the war - Britain, Germany or the US (from GI troops in the North).

Irrelevant. That Éire went in for some limited cooperation certainly didn't cool the enthusiasms of Churchill, Gray or the Northern Ireland government for war against this country.

My point is that by entering a Pact with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union declared its involvement. That fact that Germany broke the Pact is irrelevant. The USSR was not neutral - it was 'non-aggressive' towards German expansion. Non-aggression and Neutrality are not the same thing. Also, while Nazi Germany and the USSR may have been antagonistic their political ideologies of Totalitarianism and expansionism were comparable and compatible. As for antagonism being a barrier to alliances - few counteries have been as antagonistic towards each other as the USSR and US - this did not prevent them forming an alliance against Germany. Ditto for the UK and Imperial Russia who allied against The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Imperial Germany in WWI despite the lingering distrust between the two left over from the Crimean War.

It may have been a time of war - but as a declared neutral state the Irish Free State was not in a State of War - or to put it simply as the Free State had not declared war, deserters from the Irish army could not be charged with desertion at a time of war, but desertion at a time of national emergency.

Churchill was known for his anti-Irish attitude, his father Randolph has been one of those who whipped up Unionist sentiment for his own political motives. The fact remains that the aid granted to the Allies by the self-declared neutral Free State was a great deal more then 'limited cooperation' - the Donegal Corridor allowed Allied aircraft to enter Free State airspace, navigational aids for allied air crew were placed along the coast, allied airmen were returned to the UK - these were all in contravention of a declared state of neutrality.

wildfowler94 · 07-01-2012 5:00pm

Other - Please explain.

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.

Turbine · 07-01-2012 5:59pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Get real, you live in a free world thanks to the actions of the allies.

If other nations had taken the republics stance Germany would have won the war.

Look if you want to see Britain as this knight in shining armour that crossed the channel to defend democracy and the sovereignty of other countries, fine, but that's not the way I see it.

As others have pointed out, Britain was happy to sign away the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia, so why didn't they declare war there and then if they were really about defending other countries? The only reason Britain eventually stepped up and declared war against Germany was because they knew Germany would be knocking on their own door soon enough and had to do something. It did so to defend itself, not the rest of Europe, and especially not us.

The reality is, had Britain been allowed to invade the Irish Free State, it would've resulted in a small-scale war because there was no way they'd have seized control of Irish ports with the cooperation of a Republican government. So after Irish cities being bombed to sh*t, Ireland would've no doubt come under military rule. And unlike Germany, Britain had an axe to grind because of the 1916 Rising, War of Independence etc., and would've seen this as an opportunity to 'retake' the Irish Free State and reinstate British Rule across the island once again.

So as far as I'm concerned, a British invasion of Ireland would've been just as bad, if not worse, than one by Germany. Both would've resulted in loss of life and loss of freedom for the Irish people.

cruasder777 · 07-01-2012 6:01pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Turbine wrote: »

I never said they wouldn't, but they chose not to, the point I'm making is that the only reason Britain didn't was because of pressure from the United States.

Look if you want to see Britain was this knight in shining armour that crossed the channel to defend democracy and the sovereignty of other countries, fine, but that's not the way I see it.

As others have pointed out, Britain was happy to sign away the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia, so why didn't they declare war there and then if they were really about defending other countries? The only reason Britain eventually stepped up and declared war against Germany was because they knew Germany would be knocking on their own door soon enough and had to do something. It did so to defend itself, not the rest of Europe, and especially not us.

The reality is, had Britain been allowed to invade the Irish Free State, it would've resulted in a small-scale war because there was no way they'd have seized control of Irish ports with the cooperation of a Republican government. So after Irish cities being bombed to sh*t, Ireland would've no doubt come under military rule. And unlike Germany, Britain had an axe to grind because of the 1916 Rising, War of Independence etc., and would've seen this as an opportunity to 'retake' the Irish Free State and reinstate British Rule across the island once again.

So as far as I'm concerned, a British invasion of Ireland would've been just as bad, if not worse, than one by Germany. Both would've resulted in loss of life and loss of freedom for the Irish people.

Slow down, Germany, the US, the UK all had plans drawn up to invade the republic, as did the USSR in the cold war. Its military contingency planning, nothing unique in regards to Britain.

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

You are seriously comparing living under British rule with that of living under Nazi rule :rolleyes: I suggest you get out more.

blatantrereg · 07-01-2012 6:14pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Their punishment is in line with the extreme assertions of both neutrality and independence that de valera made his policy. These assertions included refusing British use of the treaty ports dispite some promises of Northern Ireland being given to the republic in return, and included being the one of the only countries, if not the only country, to commiserate Germany on Hitler's death.

Viewed in that context the punishments are unremarkable. The pardons should be viewed in the context of the present day, when our sovereignty has been sold out and our neutrality compromised in morally reprehensible ways (such as providing a military base for rendition flights). In this context, failing to offer pardons can only be seen as being extremely petty.

Turbine · 07-01-2012 6:47pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Slow down, Germany, the US, the UK all had plans drawn up to invade the republic, as did the USSR in the cold war. Its military contingency planning, nothing unique in regards to Britain.

Yes and we all know about Plan W, but we all know as well that Britain would've invaded Ireland before Germany invaded if it had to. So lets not pretend it would've been a non-event, it would've done so against the wishes of the Irish government and as such would've been met with resistance by the Irish Army, and everything that would've followed.

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are seriously comparing living under British rule with that of living under Nazi rule :rolleyes: I suggest you get out more.

You're the one saying I should be grateful to Britain for my freedom, I'm just saying why should I considering their plans for us were just as cynical as Germany's. I'm not comparing the Brits to Nazi facists, but lets get real, a British invasion of Ireland that wasn't requested by the Irish government (which was a very real threat) would've resulted in a small-scale war and loss of life for the Irish people.

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2012 6:52pm

blatantrereg wrote: »

Their punishment is in line with the extreme assertions of both neutrality and independence that de valera made his policy. These assertions included refusing British use of the treaty ports dispite some promises of Northern Ireland being given to the republic in return, and included being the one of the only countries, if not the only country, to commiserate Germany on Hitler's death.

Viewed in that context the punishments are unremarkable. The pardons should be viewed in the context of the present day, when our sovereignty has been sold out and our neutrality compromised in morally reprehensible ways (such as providing a military base for rendition flights). In this context, failing to offer pardons can only be seen as being extremely petty.

Um...minor point...there was no republic until 1949 so it was impossible for anything to be promised to it...;)

The punishments should also be viewed in the context of the time and the anti-British rhetoric (Burn everything British but their coal) professed in public by the government while in private aiding the Allies in every way they could. Just another example of an Irish government saying one thing while doing another. As you pointed out, we are still 'neutral' while aiding the US military by allowing them to use Irish airspace - including for rendition flights - and now we want to become members of the UN Council for Human Rights....:eek:. Maybe its just me, but I reckon a person has the right to due process before being incarcerated...

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.

The reality is Germany posed a far greater threat to Ireland then the UK who were unlikely to 'invade' a member of the Commonwealth. Germany would have had no option but to invade and hold Ireland if it sought to also hold the UK. Same was as Spain sought to help O'Neill and O'Donnell as a way of attacking England, not for any altruistic interest in Irish independence. Ireland is the 'back door' to England - the Nazis were well aware of that, hence their overtures to the IRA.

@ Turbine: to compare British rule in Ireland - as horrendous as it was - with what would have happened had the 'Master Race' taken over shows, IMHO, a lack of understanding of the extent of social engineering, brainwashing, oppression and state ordered murders that took place in regions under Nazi control.

Lemming · 07-01-2012 6:57pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Their punishment is in line with the extreme assertions of both neutrality and independence that de valera made his policy. These assertions included refusing British use of the treaty ports dispite some promises of Northern Ireland being given to the republic in return, and included being the one of the only countries, if not the only country, to commiserate Germany on Hitler's death.

You know that Dev permitted the flying boat squadrons based in the North the use of Irish airspace a la "the Donegal corridor" with which to hunt U-Boats off the atlantic right? Neutral indeed. Along with allowing any allied forces stranded in Ireland the right of return whilst interning Axis forces. Again, the height of neutrality. One would almost say trying to be the cute hoor as only the most gombeen Irishman seems to be capable of. Proclaim everything, fool nobody except yourself.

One could almost say Dev was an utter hypocrite. I would call him petty & vindictive for following through with the unusual collective punishment that was metting out not just to those men who left to fight with the allies, but their families too upon their return.

Of course there is also the wishing of condolences to Germany on Hitler's death; an act that is a mark of shame on Ireland's history, and an absolute clanger of a school-boy error for one considered so astute as Dev to have made.

RMD · 07-01-2012 7:03pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Turbine wrote: »

Don't be so naive. Britain had plans to invade Ireland to use its ports, just like Germany. The only reason they didn't was because of pressure from America.

The US wanted Britain to invade to secure Ireland. Why do you think such vast number of troops were stationed in the North, it was a strategic position allowing them access to both the Atlantic and the Republic if they chose to invade.

The main reason we weren't invaded was the on-going negotiations between De Valera and the British. He basically agreed that if Ireland was in a position of an imminent attack by the Germans the Brits and Americans could pour in.

Turbine · 07-01-2012 7:26pm

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Lemming wrote: »

You know that Dev permitted the flying boat squadrons based in the North the use of Irish airspace a la "the Donegal corridor" with which to hunt U-Boats off the atlantic right? Neutral indeed. Along with allowing any allied forces stranded in Ireland the right of return whilst interning Axis forces. Again, the height of neutrality. One would almost say trying to be the cute hoor as only the most gombeen Irishman seems to be capable of. Proclaim everything, fool nobody except yourself.

One could almost say Dev was an utter hypocrite. I would call him petty & vindictive for following through with the unusual collective punishment that was metting out not just to those men who left to fight with the allies, but their families too upon their return.

Of course there is also the wishing of condolences to Germany on Hitler's death; an act that is a mark of shame on Ireland's history, and an absolute clanger of a school-boy error for one considered so astute as Dev to have made.

Ireland was also a haven for many of Germany's Nazis, while deporting many German Jews seeking asylum, so it was neutral in breaking its neutrality.;)

I'd reccommend giving 'Ireland's Nazis' a watch, its up on youtube:

http://youtu.be/g6K4hQcwY20

RMD wrote: »

The US wanted Britain to invade to secure Ireland. Why do you think such vast number of troops were stationed in the North, it was a strategic position allowing them access to both the Atlantic and the Republic if they chose to invade.

The main reason we weren't invaded was the on-going negotiations between De Valera and the British. He basically agreed that if Ireland was in a position of an imminent attack by the Germans the Brits and Americans could pour in.

The agreement you're referring to was Plan W. This was a contingency plan for when Germany invaded Ireland, and was only between Ireland and Britain. The US wasn't even involved in WWII at that point to have even been considered in the plan. And under the plan, British troops would only be allowed cross the border from the North at the request of the Irish government. And even with this plan in place, there was still no guarantee that British troops wouldn't be met with hostility by Irish forces that would've been against a British invasion.

Remember, at the time the IRA declared that a German invasion would be seen as a liberation for the Irish people.

But if Britain had to, it would've invaded Ireland anyway, and had plans for this.

Maoltuile · 07-01-2012 8:03pm

Other - Please explain.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Their punishment is in line with the extreme assertions of both neutrality and independence

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?

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

Should Irish Army WW2 Deserters (to join B.A.) be pardoned ? 198 votes

Comments