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

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2012 5:36pm

Letter from today's Irish Times

A pardon for Irish soldiers
Sir, – Two points must be addressed before dealing with the main question of desertion.

Neutrality was the only realistic policy for Ireland. In 1939 just Great Britain and France of all the countries in Europe went to war with Germany. Others became involved only after they were invaded or were coerced into joining the Axis powers. In the uncertain state of affairs it was necessary to maintain the Army at as full a strength as possible until the cessation of hostilities in Europe, not least because of Éamon de Valera’s guarantee, repeated more than once, that in no circumstances would Ireland be used as a base for hostile action against Great Britain.

Desertion is a grave offence. On attestation, a recruit takes an oath to serve his country, the full implications of this having been explained to him by the attesting officer. The punishment for desertion, following a guilty verdict by a court-martial, is imprisonment. The dismissive statement in your Editorial (January 26th)describing as “codology” the assertion that desertion is always wrong is not merely offensive: it is foolish. Deserters are not schoolboys playing truant. No crime, however lightly it may be punished, can be air-brushed away as if it never happened.

More alarming, however, is the statement of the Minister for Defence (Home News, January 25th). He said: “Some of those [ie, Irish who fought in British uniforms] included members of our Defence Forces who left this island that time to fight for freedom.”

Left this island when we were on a war footing, as if they were free to come and go at will! The Minister for Defence has a leading role in the upholding of the Defence Acts. Is this his view of desertion?

Given that this was said by the Minister, could one see it being advanced as a defence in a future court-martial trial for desertion?

His further statement that “. . . in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy” is quite appalling. Is he saying that at the time that the horrors were emerging in 1945 we should not have been neutral? If so, should we have been in the war from the outset; or should we have joined in at some later date?

How does he envisage that such involvement might have come about? Of course, this controversy would not have occurred if the 5,000, like the rest of the 45,450 men and women from the then 26 counties that departed to serve in Britain without hindrance from the Irish government, had gone straight into the British forces rather than join the Irish Army and then desert.

I can accept the granting of pardons if doing so brings comfort to elderly men in their declining years, but this must not involve the condoning of their desertion. – Yours, etc,

DONAL O’CARROLL,
Col (Retd),
Moorefield Drive,
Newbridge,
Co Kildare.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224311249439

This would pretty much sum up my view.

CDfm · 05-02-2012 9:56am

Diarmuid Ferriter has entered the frey.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Diarmaid Ferriter also seems unimpressed with our Minister for Defence's comments

OPINION: Minister’s comments on Irish position reflect his own preferences and belie intricacy of period

DURING THE second World War, novelist Elizabeth Bowen travelled between Britain and Ireland and provided reports on Irish attitudes to neutrality and the British war effort to the dominions office and the ministry of information in London.

In November 1940, she offered the following assessment: “It may be felt in England that Éire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But this assertion of her neutrality is Éire’s first free self-assertion: as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Éire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative.”

This depiction of Irish neutrality, as seen through contemporary eyes, is clearly not shared by Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter, who has chosen recently to present it primarily as “a principle of moral bankruptcy” in the context of the Holocaust.

In doing so, he has underlined the dangers of reading history backwards, which has also been a feature of some of the commentary on the controversy over the actions of the 5,000 members of the Irish Army who deserted to fight with the Allies.

Both of these issues have raised a question that arose in 2005 at the time of the 60th anniversary of the end of the war, when some demanded that president Mary McAleese apologise for de Valera’s visit to the German ambassador, Edouard Hempel, to express condolences on behalf of the Irish people following the suicide of Hitler.

Such a demand posed a dilemma, now repeating itself: should contemporary politicians have to apologise for the perceived sins of their political ancestors, or is it the case that those passing judgment are simplifying the past to satisfy present-day political sensibilities or to pursue their contemporary political agendas?

The danger of framing these issues as morally black or white is that such an approach presents an analysis of historical events and experiences that is unhistorical and devoid of nuance or context. Defining Irish attitudes to the war and its attendant horrors is not well served by simplifying and distorting them into simple choices.

The complexities of the political and social attitudes of that era, wonderfully described by Clair Wills in her 2007 book That Neutral Island, were manifold. The difficulty of defining loyalty in Ireland in the 1940s, particularly during periods when invasion was a distinct possibility and when a genuine fear existed that Britain might seek to undo the Irish independence so far achieved, was compounded by many factors.

While there is little doubt that neutrality involved self-interest and managing apparent contradictions – de Valera mixed his public stubbornness with an informal pragmatism in relation to assisting the Allies – there was

the wider question of what neutrality represented at that stage in the State’s existence and the extent to which it marked the successful culmination of a foreign policy process of the 1920s and 1930s to maximise sovereignty.

It was something around which there was a high degree of political consensus in a State that was seeking to cement independence in the shadow of the devastating divisions of the early 1920s that had led to civil war. To maintain neutrality in the face of British and, after it entered the war, US opposition, took nerve and it represented a significant achievement, as well as generating pride in an infant state. This was later reflected in the positive public reaction to de Valera’s dignified response to Winston Churchill’s intemperate attack on Irish neutrality during his victory speech in May 1945.

While Shatter’s speech acknowledged briefly the concern for stability and protecting the achievement of independence, he was selective in the evidence he presented to justify the claim of moral bankruptcy. He cites the opposition of Charles Bewley, the pro-Nazi Irish ambassador in Berlin to the State accepting Jewish refugees, while failing to acknowledge Bewley was not representative of Irish diplomatic, political or public opinion; he was sidelined and unpopular with colleagues in the department of external affairs.

His attempt to reorientate Irish policy towards Germany according to his own preferences led to a falling out with Joseph Walshe, secretary of the department. In 2006, Cormac Ó Gráda pointed out in his book Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce : “Irish anti- Semitism existed and traces doubtless still persist, but it was of a relatively mild variety.”

Shatter’s pronouncements also underestimate contemporary confusion, uncertainties, scepticism about perceived propaganda, the influence of censorship and lack of access to concrete information.

As Clair Wills has observed: “the crucial factor which lamed the humanitarian response was the inability to contemplate, let alone comprehend, the true meaning and scale of the Jewish persecution until it was far too late . . . a reporting of the war denuded of all commentary, stripped of all specific reference to atrocity, produced its own kind of falsehood.”

Those who deserted from the Irish Army – and they deserted for reasons not just to do with opposition to Nazism – were dealt with harshly, and given the social and economic difficulties subsequently experienced by the deserters and their families, it can be convincingly argued that the price paid by them was unbearably high.

The case made by the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign is that a military tribunal rather than the government should have dealt with deserters, but they have also accepted unequivocally that desertion was and is a serious offence. Again, it can be seen that the issue was not and is not black or white.

The attempts by Shatter to paint Irish neutrality as dishonourable and amoral also conveniently overlook the wider cost of neutrality: it further entrenched partition, damaged relations with Britain and the US, and, as much of Europe rebuilt and prospered in the 1950s under the aegis of reconstruction, the Irish economy floundered and emigration soared. Such was partly the price of the State’s “first free self-assertion”.

Most disappointingly, the latter part of Shatter’s recent speech reveals his true agenda. He conveniently, due to his own preferences, insists that what he regards as the tarnished legacy of neutrality “delimits Ireland’s moral authority” to be critical of contemporary Israel.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0204/1224311248693.html

Messers Morgan & Roberts should memorize this just in case they are tempted to open their mouths on the issue again.

Oasis_Dublin · 05-02-2012 8:03pm

"In doing so, he has underlined the dangers of reading history backwards..." Very interesting indeed.

CDfm · 05-02-2012 9:01pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

"In doing so, he has underlined the dangers of reading history backwards..." Very interesting indeed.

Is "he was selective in the evidence" a euphemism for the Blueshirt's.

He does mention Clair Wills book" The Neutral Island" which I enjoyed reading a few years back if only for the line "If neutrality was dangerous, belligerence looked like suicide".

Ozymandiaz · 06-02-2012 12:24am

Bannasidhe quoted Diarmaid Ferriters letter and its reference to the 2005 controversy over the 60 anniversary of Dev's expression of condolence to the German ambassador and whether Mary MacAleese should 'apologize' for it. About that time the following letter appeared in the Irish Times (March 2005) written by a former Chief Rabbi of Ireland. It speaks for itself:

In March 2005 the onetime Chief Rabbi of Ireland (1959-79), Dr Isaac Cohen, wrote as follows in a letter to the Irish Times:

Madam – Further to Manus O’Riordan’s letter of February 22nd regarding the late President de Valera’s message of condolence to the German ambassador in 1945 permit me to take this opportunity of elaborating on the subject.

I discussed this question with President de Valera and he explained to me that, owing to the difficult situation in the relationship of the Republic of Ireland with Britain at the time, he felt unable to join Britain in the Allied war against Germany, and, like many other small nations, he chose to maintain a state of neutrality. He said he has severely condemned the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people and he had conveyed this to the German ambassador.

His message of condolence on the death of Hitler was merely an official act which was required by diplomatic protocol and was no judgement on the righteousness of German actions. In fact there were a number of occasions when his neutrality leaned towards the Allied cause. When President Rooosevelt died he paid a very warm tribute to him at a special meeting of the Dáil.

During his years with the Irish Volunteers he developed a warm mutual friendship with a predecessor of mine, Rabbi Dr. Isaac Herzog, whom he visited in the Chief Rabbi’s residence in Dublin’s South Circular Road.

He mentioned a number of times that he greatly admired the new-born state of Israel and welcomed its liberation from British control. He was particularly impressed by the successful revival of Hebrew as the daily spoken language in Israel.

President de Valera was deeply moved when I brought him a sapling of a fir tree in 1973 from Eamonn de Valera Forest which the Irish Jewish community had planted in Cana near Nazareth in his honour. When the Israeli forestry department sent him three trees growing in the forest he was happy to plant them himself in the grounds of Aras an Uachtaráin [the residence of the Irish President] so as to have a part of the Holy Land near his home. I participated in the planting together with Prof. Mervyn Abrahamson, Chairman of the Forest Committee.

I would like to add that when the United Nations urged Israel to withdraw from extensive parts of the liberated areas of Palestine he said that if he had still been President of the League of Nations he would have seen to it that Israel did not give up any of the territory that it had regained after the Arab attack resulting in the Six Day War in 1967.

With cordial greetings to the many friends, Jewish and non-Jewish, that I made during my happy stay in Ireland – Yours, Rabbi Dr Isaac Cohen, Jerusalem, Israel.

Ozymandiaz · 06-02-2012 12:27am

Thought I'd slip this in here also. In May 1965 more than 900 Jewish families in Ireland funded the Israeli state in planting 10,000 trees in a new forest dedicated to Eamon de Valera. Dev is not the only person with Irish connections who have been commemorated with a forest in Israel. Seven years earlier Isaac (Yitzhak) Herzog, onetime Chief Rabbi of Ireland and later Chief Rabbi of Israel, was honoured with one on his 70th birthday in 1958. He was a fluent Irish speaker and was known as the Sinn Féin Rabbi because of his republican sympathies during his time here in Ireland (see Asher Benson, Jewish Dublin, 2007).

His son, Chaim Herzog, was born and educated in Dublin and eventually became Israel’s sixth President (1983-93). When still a colonel in the Israeli Army he was interviewed by the Irish Times on a visit to Ireland in 1958 and said:

I was going to school during the Irish struggle for independence and I often recalled that struggle when we were having difficult times in Israel during the days it was administered under a mandate by the [British] authorities. My father, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, also often spoke on his experiences in Ireland to show what a small determined country can do under difficult circumstances if it has the will to do so. … When my father was in the United States some years ago he was voted a honorary member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. When he tried to explain that he was no longer living in Ireland a voice from the back of the hall shouted, ‘once an Irishman, always an Irishman’.

In the course of this interview Chaim also claimed that the Irish delegation to the UN in the 1950s had won widespread respect for the stance it took on international affairs and its pronouncements were listened to with a great deal of respect. [Irish Times, 5 Nov. 1958]

Three years later in 1968 the Dublin Branch of the Womens’ International Zionist Organization funded the establishment of a youth centre in Haifa to be called the ‘Dublin House’. The Irish organizer was Mrs Jacob Weingreen, the wife of the Professor of Oriental & Biblical Studies in Trinity College Dublin. She and her colleagues in Dublin were also presented with a forest in their name in Israel.

CDfm · 06-02-2012 12:47am

Great post Ozymandiaz.

From Galway a DeValera bi-election speech.

De Valera’s Galway speech angers Nazi Germany

Galway Advertiser, March 05, 2009.
Eamon de Valera was in Galway on the evening of May 11 1940 engaged in a by-election campaign, when he was told that Germany had invaded Belgium and Holland that morning. He was outraged. Belgium felt that by declaring its neutrality it was protected from Hitler. But it was sadly mistaken. Germany felt threatened (at least it pretended to be), that the Allies may use Belgium as a ‘jumping off’ base to attack her. With terrifying speed and ruthlessness, using new tactics of fighter bombers and tanks, Germany subdued both countries in a matter of days.
Dev must have wondered at the fragility of any country hoping to escape the war by stating its neutrality. Would the same fate await Éire? And he must have been thinking too of his work in Geneva as president of the Council of the League of Nations, seven years earlier. The small nations of Europe were friendly to each other, and supported each other’s needs. Two of whom were now on the verge of disappearing.
Dev set aside his by-election speech, and protested at Germany’s infamy in ‘non-neutral’ language. He told his Galway audience (who must have been equally disturbed by the news): “Today, these two small nations are fighting for their lives and I think I would be unworthy of this small nation if, on an occasion like this, I did not utter our protest against the cruel wrong that has been done to them.*”

The German minister to Ireland, Edouard Hempel, immediately condemned the statement, particularly the use of the word ‘protest’. He was placated somewhat by F H Boland in Government buildings, who assured Hempel that the rest of de Valera’s speech contained a categorical denial of rumours of a deal with the British about the Irish ports, and a strong re-affirmation of Éire’s neutrality, and its determination to resist attack from any quarter.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/9161

And Galway being a good neighbour.

Galway was ready to serve...

Galway Advertiser, March 26, 2009.
By Ronnie O'gorman
On the evening that France and Britain declared war on Germany, September 3 1939, the 13,500-ton liner SS Athenia, chartered by the Cunard Line, and bound for Montreal with 1,418 passengers and crew was torpedoed, without warning, 250 miles northwest of Malin Head in the North Atlantic*. The following day the Norwegian vessel, Knute Nelson, was steaming towards Galway with 367 shocked and injured survivors, and asked that the city be prepared to receive them. Other survivors were picked up by British naval vessels and brought elsewhere for treatment, but in total 112 passengers and crew were killed in the attack, 28 of them Americans sailing for home as war was declared in Europe.
The message for Galway to receive survivors was relayed through Malin Head radio which had already heard the distress signals from the Athenia, and witnessed the fearful drama at sea. Galway, initially stunned that it should be involved so soon in a rescue resulting from war at sea, reacted magnificently.
Hurriedly the hospital was put on full alert, two schools were emptied to act as reception centres, hotel rooms were booked. It was Race Week in Galway, but people gladly gave up their rooms. Mayor Joe Costello, Bishop of Galway Dr Michael Browne, and Commandant Padraig O’Duinnin, OC of the Defence Forces 1st Infantry Battalion, and Garda Superintendent Tomás O’Coileáin co-ordinated the Galway response. At dawn on September 5 the Knute Nelson arrived at the docks where ‘expeditious and satisfactory arrangements were made for the disembarkation of passengers who were in a very distressed state ...Most of them only half clothed.’ In fact the tender that serviced large ships, under Capt Bill Goggin, had already met the survivors at sea, near Blackhead. On board were Dr Morris and a nursing team, who tended to the injured as they lay on the deck of the Knute Nelson, who then completed her voyage into Galway. On arrival, the Army Medical Corps took charge of 10 stretcher cases and the walking wounded, while Gardai and civilian volunteers supervised the distribution of food and clothing.
The arrival of the survivors, which included the Athenia’s captain James Cook, created a huge stir in the town. Hundreds of people volunteered to help, while hundreds more watched the arrival of the Knute Nelson. Once everyone had learned that the ship was hit by a torpedo, there was unease and excitement in the realisation that despite declaring its neutrality, Ireland could not isolate itself from the conflict which would soon engulf most of Europe, and be waged in the ocean beside us.
‘Hospitable assistance’

With the help of the Irish Army Air Corps, Captain Alan Kirk, US naval attaché in London, and Commander Norman Hitchcock, US assistant naval attaché for Air, flew into Galway to interview the American survivors. The American Ambassador to Ireland, John Cudahy, was already at the docks when the Knute Nelson arrived. Initially there was some confusion about the causes of the sinking. There was annoyance among the Irish authorities at what appeared to be ‘eagerness’ from the American navy brass to establish whether anyone saw a submarine, or a torpedo hit the ship. Garda Superintendent O’Coileáin felt that Cudahy and Kirk ‘wished at all costs to establish that the SS Athenia had been sunk by a submarine’ and wished to report so to Washington. But it soon emerged that there was no doubt the ship was sunk by torpedo. Captain Cook later confirmed to O’Duinnin that it was a torpedo hit.
Later Washington instructed Cudahy to inform the Irish Government that the ‘United States was deeply appreciative of the hospitable assistance given to the American survivors of the SS Athenia in Galway’. The town had presented itself as a ‘model of efficient organisation,’ and it carried out its assistance in a ‘competent and sympathetic manner’. John Cudahy wrote personally to Eamon de Valera to thank him for ‘the excellent arrangements made’.
Help our neighbour

In the last few weeks I received some correspondence about Ireland’s ‘neutrality’ during the last war, and a copy of Michael Kennedy’s excellent book Guarding Neutral Ireland (from which I will quote in the future).** Ireland’s neutrality was favourably disposed towards Britain and her allies during World War II. We assisted the Allies in many practical ways, while maintaining an outward show that we rigidly endorsed a policy of neutrality. If Ireland was invaded the Irish Government made it widely known that we would defend ourselves to the utmost of our ability, despite our very limited resources.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/10091

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2012 11:08am

The Bun Fight rumbles on:

Sir, – Prof Diarmaid Ferriter (Opinion Analysis, February 4th) depicts Ireland’s wartime neutrality as a pragmatic response to difficult circumstances and as an assertion of Irish independence. He also urges us to view the war through the eyes of the time rather than in retrospect.

One contemporary view was that of Robert Brennan, Irish ambassador to the United States. In a speech in 1942, he compared neutral Ireland to the medieval Ireland of saints and scholars who kept the light of civilisation burning during the dark ages.

He speculated that after the second World War, Ireland might be called once again to a mission of enlightenment.

Brennan’s comments reveal that the Irish political elite – and a good part of the population, too – considered neutrality to be morally superior to the position of all participants in the war, including the anti-fascist Allied coalition. Such was the hubris that led Éamon de Valera to deliver his condolences on the death of Hitler.

Had Irish neutrality been a purely pragmatic stance, it would have been abandoned when it was safe to do so in 1942 or 1943, when the country could have aligned itself with the Allies. Such a policy shift would have obviated many of the negative consequences of neutrality noted by Prof Ferriter, such as the country’s postwar isolation. It would also have asserted unequivocally Ireland’s independence not only as a sovereign state but as a free and democratic one.

Prof Ferriter chides Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter for politicising the historical debate about Ireland’s wartime neutrality but he must surely be aware that his own contribution to the discussion is political, too, and part of a long tradition of attempts to justify neutrality by reference to the complexity of the situation. It is the job of historians to represent past reality in all its complexity. But we also have a responsibility to analyse that complexity to get to the heart of the matter. – Yours, etc,

Prof GEOFFREY ROBERTS,

School of History,

University College Cork.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0208/1224311460663.html

I have been awaiting Geoff's inevitable reply to Diarmaid with interest and am underwhelmed by it. I am left with the impression that Geoff really doesn't 'get it' and that passages such as 'Brennan’s comments reveal that the Irish political elite – and a good part of the population, too – considered neutrality to be morally superior to the position of all participants in the war, including the anti-fascist Allied coalition. Such was the hubris that led Éamon de Valera to deliver his condolences on the death of Hitler' seem to me to be clutching at straws and a deliberate twisting of events - that crack about moral superiority - even to the Anti-Fascist League is uncalled for and is the description of Dev's offer of condolences as hubris. Mainly I am annoyed that Robert's is putting me in a position where I am defending Dev :mad:.

I do think Geoff has opened a can of worms for himself

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts takes Diarmaid Ferriter (Opinion & Analysis, February 4th) to task on the issue of Ireland’s wartime neutrality, accusing him of making a political, rather than a historical, assessment of the reasons behind de Valera’s stance in the period. He goes on to put Prof Ferriter’s opinion in what he calls the “long tradition of attempts to justify neutrality”.

I would have thought neutrality was a self-evident good, and one should not go to war unless the alternative is more unpalatable for one’s country. This cynical attitude was, after all, the one struck by the Allied Powers themselves prior to the outbreak of war. Britain and France only declared war on Hitler when they realised that selling Austria and Czechoslovakia down the river wouldn’t be enough to assuage him; the Americans only came in when they were bombed.

Quite what Prof Roberts finds objectionable in de Valera being more successful in pursuing Allied policy than the allies themselves is hard to fathom.

There is, of course, another “long tradition” in Irish history, one much more rarely spoken of than the one he accuses Prof Ferriter of being part of, but one which has been present since the foundation of the State and which hasn’t gone away.

It is an attitude of mind which, at its core, has never really accepted the right of this State to exist, and consequently, cannot accept its right not to support “real” countries such as Britain, France or America when their national interests require that we do so. It is the same attitude exhibited in Churchill’s contemptuous address toward the State at the end of the second World War, and the same attitude which has lead to the craven collapse of our politicians before the troika today.

Perhaps as a historian, Prof Roberts might like to address it. – Yours, etc,

DAVID SMITH,
Harmonstown Road,
Artane,
Dublin 5.

Sir, – Prof Geoffrey Roberts (February 8th) seems to me to miss the real historical point in his response to the article by Prof Diarmaid Ferriter. The policy of neutrality in 1939-1945 had nothing essentially to do with the war against Nazi Germany (however morally justified that war may have been) but was determined by internal divisions within the 26 counties in the wake of the Civil War.

These divisions imposed a moral imperative of their own. It is perhaps hard for the British to realise how much they were hated in Ireland in 1939. But an historical perspective ought not to be difficult in this respect even for British historians.

The British betrayed the act of its own sovereign parliament in 1914 by failing to stand over the constitutional settlement of Home Rule at the end of the war in 1918 after many of John Redmond’s supporters had given their lives in support of the British during the war.

In 1920 the Welsh prime minister Lloyd George, together with the Ulster Scot deputy prime minister Bonar Law, sent the Black and Tans into Ireland with catastrophic consequences. Even today, as I discovered in a conversation in the Berkeley Hotel as recently as last Saturday, it is difficult to discuss this subject with any degree of calmness or historical objectivity. In 1921 the British partitioned Ireland. If, for example, the Irish had partitioned England in 1921, I as an Englishman would find it difficult to forgive them.

In keeping the 26 counties intact through the Emergency, Eamon de Valera deserves our praise not our censure. – Yours, etc,

GERALD MORGAN,
The Chaucer Hub,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224311519575

I think Geoff should have a long chat with his colleague Donal O Drisceoil to help him gain an insight into the Irish perspective.

CDfm · 09-02-2012 1:33pm

These divisions imposed a moral imperative of their own. It is perhaps hard for the British to realise how much they were hated in Ireland in 1939. But an historical perspective ought not to be difficult in this respect even for British historians., I as an Englishman would find it difficult to forgive them.

GERALD MORGAN,
The Chaucer Hub,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.

Giraldus Cambrensis Rides Again

Does he not get that to be Irish is to have British/English relatives. It seems to be a bit more about his worldview than anyone elses.

I do think Geoff has opened a can of worms for himself

I do hope someone explains to him that we had a lot of foreign interference in Irish Affairs at that stage even in 1916.

DeValera was American, James Connolly Scottish, and the gunrunner who supplied the weapons Erskine Childers an Englishman.

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2012 2:01pm

CDfm wrote: »

Giraldus Cambrensis Rides Again

Does he not get that to be Irish is to have British/English relatives. It seems to be a bit more about his worldview than anyone elses.

I do hope someone explains to him that we had a lot of foreign interference in Irish Affairs at that stage even in 1916.

DeValera was American, James Connolly Scottish, and the gunrunner who supplied the weapons Erskine Childers an Englishman.

Indeed - Ireland may have been insular and isolationist but we had relatives everywhere.

My own grandmother was forever grateful for the regular parcels of clothes, candy, tinned goods, tea, coffee, sugar and even comic books her elder sister sent her from NY during the war. At first a load of the stuff used to be 'impounded' by customs and excise until they worked out if they addressed the parcels to my grandfather c/o Cork GPO (he was a postman) it somehow bypassed customs and the parcel arrived intact. The trick then was smuggling it into the house without the neighbours seeing.

At my grandmother's funeral in 1999 her brother gave a very moving speech where he spoke about receiving a cherry cake from her in 1942. The mail call came just before he had to leave on a bombing raid and he opened the parcel sitting in the bay of the plane. He couldn't help but notice the other occupant of the bay was actually drooling at the sight of the cake. Turned out to be 'a chap called Sullivan from Skibereen' - the two Corkmen shared the Cherry cake between them making sure they ate it all in case they got shot down and the cake would be wasted.
What moved him so much was that his sister had used up the family egg and sugar ration to bake him a cake - at the point she had 4 young children - even though she was a staunch republican and firm supporter of neutrality.

Manic Moran · 09-02-2012 9:32pm

It is perhaps hard for the British to realise how much they were hated in Ireland in 1939

I am sure that the level of hatred amongst some individuals or communities was indeed off the scale.

But given both the economic interdependence (Irish people going to the UK for work, the amount of resources that the Irish State got from the UK), and the numbers in which Irish men actively joined the British military, one finds it difficult to believe that such a level of hatred was universal, or even dominant.

NTM

Oasis_Dublin · 09-02-2012 9:38pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am sure that the level of hatred amongst some individuals or communities was indeed off the scale.

But given both the economic interdependence (Irish people going to the UK for work, the amount of resources that the Irish State got from the UK), and the numbers in which Irish men actively joined the British military, one finds it difficult to believe that such a level of hatred was universal, or even dominant.

NTM

How many Irish people out of the 3 million (roughly) living in the state at the time joined the British army though?

Bannasidhe · 10-02-2012 2:30pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am sure that the level of hatred amongst some individuals or communities was indeed off the scale.

But given both the economic interdependence (Irish people going to the UK for work, the amount of resources that the Irish State got from the UK), and the numbers in which Irish men actively joined the British military, one finds it difficult to believe that such a level of hatred was universal, or even dominant.

NTM

I think there was, and to an extent still is, an ambigious relationship between the Irish and all things British - in particular 'English'.

Now this opinion is based on observation rather the empirical research but in my own family both my grandmother and mother - both lived through 'The Emergency' were/are staunch republicans - always quick to make a scathing comment or blame the British but also avid shoppers in Marks, fanatical watchers of British TV and royal weddings (granted so they could bitch and demand 'our' coach back), loved going to London (hated going to Dublin) to shop.

A very well known Cork restauranteur/hotelier family of my acquaintance would go so far as to refer to the Barry's as'Free Staters' and 'Blue Shirts', they were downright rude (in private) about any British guests yet religiously went fox hunting during the season.

Look at Haughey - he aped the lifestyle of an English Squire while simultaneously playing the republican card.

We 'hate' them but we are subconsciously programmed to see 'their' way of life as somehow superior to 'our' way of life.

CDfm · 14-02-2012 5:56pm

An update

Morlar wrote: »

Finally a hint of balance from our state broadcaster on this subject :

Broadcast on: 13 February 2012
Six One News: Retired army officers voice opposition to deserter pardon

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0213/media-3197887.html#

CDfm · 12-03-2012 1:01am

For those interested

Morlar wrote: »

It looks like Alan Shatter has given the quiet nod that he is going to pardon the deserters.

The online campaign (which used lies and distortions throughout) has now taken down it's internet petition :

http://www.forthesakeofexample.com/

In the light of the public statement made by the Minister For Defence Mr Allan Shatter T.D. on the BBC NI Newsline Programme, Thursday 2 February 2012, where it is apparent from his interview that the issue of pardons has past the consideration stage and is now going through the steps necessary in the process required for this to take place, and while not pre-empting the outcome, the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2) deems it appropriate to remove the Online Petition from our website and trust the Minister will act accordingly in due course. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all concerned who have supported the TEAM EFFORT to date. Future developments will be posted on the Notices Page of this website.

jonniebgood1 · 12-03-2012 9:59am

Are they waiting on an opinion on the legality of this move from the Attorney General?

I have commented before but I think this is a proper development. Interestingly even Sinn Fein agree with the government on this move, that does'nt happen often and particularly in this case given that the soldiers ended up in the British army http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/tabId/215/itemId/13802/Give-them-the-pardon-they-deserve.aspx .

Bannasidhe · 12-03-2012 10:57am

I had an interesting discussion about this with my grand-uncle last week. He was an RAF medic during WWII, joined up in 1937 and served in North Africa, Italy, Palestine, Germany before demobbing in '48. He is completely opposed to the idea, as a ex-serviceman, to deserters being pardoned.

Firstly, as a committed anti-Fascist, he believes Ireland should have entered the war - that the threat posed by Fascism had been made clear during the Spanish Civil War and nothing short of a comprehensive military defeat would ever stop 'those mad men'.
However, he also recognised that Dev made a pragmatic decision based on what he believed was best for Ireland. The country was financially in no position to wage war, was still suffering from the fall-out from both the War of Independence and the Civil War and would have had no option but to rely on British Forces at least initially. He fully believes that had British forces reappeared on Irish streets that civil war would have broken out again.

Interestingly, he did mention that the Irish army (his uncle was a captain) had a strong fascist element so he would have expected elements within the Irish army to ally with the fascists...

For him it is simply an issue that these men made an oath to serve in the Irish army and then broke that oath by deserting - what they did after that desertion is to him immaterial. The fact is they deserted.

He spoke of his experiences with deserters in the RAF and the effect this had on operations and moral, and the fact that as a serviceman one didn't have a 'choice' - one followed orders or the whole system collapsed.
He told me of an incident in '42 in North Africa when his C.O. issued an order for a particular airman to be sent on what was essentially a suicide mission. As Staff Sergeant my grand-Uncle requested that he be sent instead of this man, a conscripted father of four, but was refused permission. He had to order the airman on to the plane at gunpoint or face charges himself. I asked how he felt about this and he said he would have preferred to have gone in the man's place, but orders were orders and it was his duty as Staff Sergeant to ensure orders were followed and trust that those in charge, who could see the big picture, knew what they were doing.

He also spoke about discussions which took place among Irish servicemen in the British Forces as to what they would do were Ireland invaded -by either side. All were aware of the possibility and worried about what they would do.
It was a real concern but, he felt that if Britain invaded Ireland, he, as an Irishman, would have no choice but to desert from the RAF and fight for Ireland - but expected that had he ever been captured by British forces he would have expected to have been shot as a deserter.

As for the comments re: morality of fighting to prevent the Holocaust - he dismissed this out of hand. He said that although the powers that be may have had some knowledge of what was going on, the average serviceman had no idea and only became aware of it around '44/45 - by which point Ireland's involvement would have made no difference.
This is borne out by a conversation I had many years ago with a friend of my father's who was a GI. He was in a transport unit and was the driver of the first U.S. truck to enter a concentration camp - he said they had no idea what was in there - they knew it was some kind of prison, had absolutely no idea what they would find and not in a million years did they expect to see the horrors that were there.

My Grand-Uncle also spoke of how the Irish government and ordinary Irish people facilitated Irishmen and Irish women fighting for the Allies. He said that every time he came home on leave (in civvies of course) he was treated as a hero - even by his fanatically republican mother and sister (his father was unionist).

So, the upshot of the conversation was that he believes the deserters got off lightly, that had Ireland been invaded he would have felt compelled to return to fight but would have done so as a member of a Resistance movement not as a member of the Irish Army and would have fully expected to be shot for desertion if ever captured by the British.

That there was concern among Irish people that many in positions of authority in the Free State - in particular in the military and police- had fascist sympathies and could not be trusted so from a pragmatic point of view Dev took the right decision and that the Irish government is not given due credit for the aid it did give the Allies.

jonniebgood1 · 12-03-2012 11:09am

That is an excellent summary of the contradictions and dilemmas faced in this problem.

The contradiction is the willingness to desert in certain terms, It is very difficult to put one persons justification for desertion above anothers and that seems to be what this discussion is about:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He also spoke about discussions which took place among Irish servicemen in the British Forces as to what they would do were Ireland invaded -by either side. All were aware of the possibility and worried about what they would do.
It was a real concern but, he felt that if Britain invaded Ireland, he, as an Irishman, would have no choice but to desert from the RAF and fight for Ireland - but expected that had he ever been captured by British forces he would have expected to have been shot as a deserter.

The Dilemma would have been if a committed anti-facist joined the Irish army and then discovered that the reason they joined (fighting facism) would not be their role. The pejorative possibility of this circumstance should not be underestimated particularly in young men:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I had an interesting discussion about this with my grand-uncle last week. He was an RAF medic during WWII, joined up in 1937 and served in North Africa, Italy, Palestine, Germany before demobbing in '48. He is completely opposed to the idea, as a ex-serviceman, to deserters being pardoned.

Firstly, as a committed anti-Fascist, he believes Ireland should have entered the war - that the threat posed by Fascism had been made clear during the Spanish Civil War and nothing short of a comprehensive military defeat would ever stop 'those mad men'.
However, he also recognised that Dev made a pragmatic decision based on what he believed was best for Ireland. The country was financially in no position to wage war, was still suffering from the fall-out from both the War of Independence and the Civil War and would have had no option but to rely on British Forces at least initially. He fully believes that had British forces reappeared on Irish streets that civil war would have broken out again.

Interestingly, he did mention that the Irish army (his uncle was a captain) had a strong fascist element so he would have expected elements within the Irish army to ally with the fascists...

Bannasidhe · 12-03-2012 11:32am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That is an excellent summary of the contradictions and dilemmas faced in this problem.

The contradiction is the willingness to desert in certain terms, It is very difficult to put one persons justification for desertion above anothers and that seems to be what this discussion is about:

The Dilemma would have been if a committed anti-facist joined the Irish army and then discovered that the reason they joined (fighting facism) would not be their role. The pejorative possibility of this circumstance should not be underestimated particularly in young men:

Yes, desertion in certain situations - in this case if the Armed forces one is serving in actually invades one's own country but being fully prepared that, if captured, one could be summarily executed. Were Germany to invade (and we also discussed the possibility of Spain joining the Axis and invading Ireland as a gateway to Britain) most Irish servicemen in the British forces seem to have felt they would remain there rather then join the Irish army.

Grand-Uncle is an avid amateur historian and has done a great deal of research into the whole area of British plans to invade Ireland - imagine his surprise when going through documents in Kew he found a list of names of those in Ireland who were to be immediately placed under arrest and his elder brother's name was in the top ten. Now, elder brother had been an active republican, a member of one of the Cork Flying Squads, and fought on the anti-treaty side. He was also a committed and vocal anti-Fascist and had not been active in any military capacity once the Treaty Side won the war (he was not among the Republican internees during the Emergency)- Grand-uncle is firmly of the opinion that his brother's name was on that list as 'revenge' for his activities in the War of Independence.

pedroeibar1 · 12-03-2012 1:03pm

Thanks Bannasidhe, Fascinating posts, lucky to have that experience.

One of my uncles was in the RN, served on HMS Ajax and later HMS Achilles. He took part in the battle of the River Plate. I never was able to get him to open up on his experiences, other than a few shoregoing experiences in places like Montevideo or Mombasa. His brother was a commissioned officer in the Irish army. I had another ‘uncle’ (married to my aunt) in the RAF, bomber pilot, very active war – more than 10k flying hours, decorated, shot down several times and only once did he mention the War and that was to tell me one story. He said he did it to explain why he never wanted to discuss it again. I understood. In the 1980’s I was involved with a German company, the owner of which had fought at Monte Casino, as had a friend of mine who was with the British Army’s transport corps, fought all the way up from North Africa. I asked the latter would he like to meet the German at a dinner and he refused outright. Although he was quite a mild man, the hatred was there , primarily because the Germans had almost no ammunition left, were totally surrounded/outnumbered but kept fighting.

Has your uncle come across a German book named ‘Uber die Englische Humanitat'? It is an anti-British propaganda book from c1940, supposedly was going to be published in English ‘en masse’ prior to the German invasion of Ireland. The text is mainly in German, but it includes facsimile pages from books in English. It covers diverse atrocities, Indian mutiny, Boer war concentration camps, and includes the address by the 1921 Dail to the US Congress on ‘The Struggle of the Irish People’ which has some fascinating appendices on the destruction of wealth, capital loss in population, etc

Bannasidhe · 12-03-2012 1:40pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Thanks Bannasidhe, Fascinating posts, lucky to have that experience.

One of my uncles was in the RN, served on HMS Ajax and later HMS Achilles. He took part in the battle of the River Plate. I never was able to get him to open up on his experiences, other than a few shoregoing experiences in places like Montevideo or Mombasa. His brother was a commissioned officer in the Irish army. I had another ‘uncle’ (married to my aunt) in the RAF, bomber pilot, very active war – more than 10k flying hours, decorated, shot down several times and only once did he mention the War and that was to tell me one story. He said he did it to explain why he never wanted to discuss it again. I understood. In the 1980’s I was involved with a German company, the owner of which had fought at Monte Casino, as had a friend of mine who was with the British Army’s transport corps, fought all the way up from North Africa. I asked the latter would he like to meet the German at a dinner and he refused outright. Although he was quite a mild man, the hatred was there , primarily because the Germans had almost no ammunition left, were totally surrounded/outnumbered but kept fighting.

Has your uncle come across a German book named ‘Uber die Englische Humanitat'? It is an anti-British propaganda book from c1940, supposedly was going to be published in English ‘en masse’ prior to the German invasion of Ireland. The text is mainly in German, but it includes facsimile pages from books in English. It covers diverse atrocities, Indian mutiny, Boer war concentration camps, and includes the address by the 1921 Dail to the US Congress on ‘The Struggle of the Irish People’ which has some fascinating appendices on the destruction of wealth, capital loss in population, etc

I'll mention it to him when I see him next week. He is fluent in German (and Arabic) so will be able to read it in the original - if he hasn't already.

Normally he doesn't do into the specifics of his experiences ('What was the Battle for Italy like?' 'Sweaty.') but he opened up during this discussion and spoke of both 'wonderful' moments - realising he was Carthage which had fascinated him as a schoolboy- and the truly horrific - being sent in as a medic (apparently the M.O. was squeamish so tended to 'disappear' when things got 'icky and sticky') to remove the remains of a bomber aircrew who had been killed/fatally injured by some sort of percussive implosion. Most of the crew were decapitated and he found himself - at 23 years of age - unsuccessfully trying to find some way of picking up the heads of men he know in a dignified manner rather then by their hair. This particular aircrew had being deprived of air support by a man he termed a 'deserter'. Apparently, this 'deserter' had been a radio operator and had issued a false order to the fighter planes to stand down before going AWOL. I asked if he thought the man was a traitor and he said no, that he believed the man was sick of death and thought that if there were no fighter planes then the bombers would return to base. Grand-Uncle participated in this 'deserters' autopsy a month later after he had been executed.

He was also part of a mad scheme to 'invade' Turkey dressed in civilian clothes... luckily that one never got passed the issuing of civilian clothes stage as he reckoned they would have been shot as spies within feet of crossing into Turkey - not least because the clothes they were issued with were demob suits from WWI with trousers that went to the nipples, flat caps for the non-officers and top hats for officers (apparently the officers stole the flat caps....) and prison issue braces complete with 'prison arrows' printed on to them...

My G.I. friend would say only that he had driven the first truck into a concentration camp and that he could still see it when he closed his eyes. He wouldn't divulge any other information. As he was Polish-American, and spoke Polish fluently, I suspect he would have been stationed in Poland...but given the military mind - who knows...

CDfm · 12-03-2012 1:43pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are they waiting on an opinion on the legality of this move from the Attorney General?

I have commented before but I think this is a proper development. Interestingly even Sinn Fein agree with the government on this move, that does'nt happen often and particularly in this case given that the soldiers ended up in the British army http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/tabId/215/itemId/13802/Give-them-the-pardon-they-deserve.aspx .

That is their right.

Who is covered under the pardon, presumably it is not limited to those who enlisted in the allied forces during WWII.

Does anyone know ?

jonniebgood1 · 12-03-2012 3:06pm

CDfm wrote: »

That is their right.

Who is covered under the pardon, presumably it is not limited to those who enlisted in the allied forces during WWII.

Does anyone know ?

This is the interesting part- why do you presume it would not be limited?

CDfm · 12-03-2012 3:43pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is the interesting part- why do you presume it would not be limited?

Is it an en masse pardon like this

Germany Pardons en Masse Thousands Persecuted by Nazis

By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 29, 1998

Years after the death of many of its likely beneficiaries, a mass pardon was approved today by the German Parliament for hundreds of thousands of people punished unjustly by Nazi courts, military tribunals and medical panels.
The new law is intended to provide moral rehabilitation for those Germans who fell afoul of the Nazi system as resistance fighters, homosexuals or deserters. It also is a formal gesture intended to erase the stigma suffered by some 350,000 people forced to undergo sterilization because of physical disabilities during the Nazi era from 1933 to 1945.
''No conviction which represents typical Nazi abuse of justice will any longer be valid,'' said Horst Eylmann, the chairman of a parliamentary panel that drew up the new law.
However, the final draft of the pardon left some ambiguities over the contentious issues of deserters and homosexuals -- part of the debate that has held up the law for decades as courts wrangled over the status of the Nazi legal system.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/29/world/germany-pardons-en-masse-thousands-persecuted-by-nazis.html

What I mean is en masse irrespective of the reason for desertion and no matter what reason, organisation or army (Allies or Axis) were joined. ?

jonniebgood1 · 12-03-2012 5:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

Is it an en masse pardon like this

What I mean is en masse irrespective of the reason for desertion and no matter what reason, organisation or army (Allies or Axis) were joined. ?

I understand what you mean by this, would someone who left to fight for Hitler be pardoned. I would think not given that the reasons for the pardon would be partly based upon the circumstances that were apparent at the time and were particular to fighting on the Allied side (stopping facism, ending the Holocaust, liberating death camps, etc.).

I know its conjecture as nothing has been announced regarding this but why do you say "presumably it is not limited to those who enlisted in the allied forces"?

CDfm · 12-03-2012 5:59pm

I just wonder where this is going. Pardons are always contentious.

Take this

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/germany-pardons-nazi-regimes-traitors

and this -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/feb/24/archive-1953-pardon-deserters-wwii

What were the term's of those - so what are we comparing it against.

or this guy

http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/01/31/1945-private-eddie-slovik-desertion/

I would like more detail.

jonniebgood1 · 12-06-2012 10:18pm

It seems that this has been decided upon.

Minister for Defence Alan Shatter has told the Dáil that the Government apologises for the manner in which the deserters were treated by the State after the war.

He said the Government recognises the value and importance of their military contribution to the Allied victory.

Up to 4,500 soldiers fled from the Defence Forces during the Second World War and did not return to their Irish units.

Many of them joined the British Army.

After the war, the De Valera Government published a list of those who deserted.

Anyone who was mentioned in this book was banned from getting a public service job at any level. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/govt-pardon-for-former-soldiers.html

JustinDee · 12-06-2012 10:38pm

So closes thankfully a shameful chapter in this state's history.
The vilification of those who went to fight a very serious threat to this country was disgusting.

dubhthach · 12-06-2012 11:42pm

infactaniceone wrote: »

These men were heroes , they put themselves and their lives on the frontline while this "KILLINASKULLY" country had its finger up its ass. They fought because they were trained to fight and felt they were needed in battle. Hoo-ah they deserve more than a pardon, do u honestly think that putting yourself in front of German and Italian bullets was the easy way out. Shame on you all and your bigoted Irish stupidness. Without people like this, people like u would not be here. Remember 5000 made the decision to fight and they were blacklisted when they came home. Shame on Ireland and its usual country bull**** and thank you Grandad for fighting for me to live like i am today, today your war was won.

Mod
Infracted -- Uncivil posts/trolling are not welcome in this forum. Please desist from such in the future or I will be forced to ban you.

Snickers Man · 14-06-2012 11:54am

JustinDee wrote: »

So closes thankfully a shameful chapter in this state's history.
The vilification of those who went to fight a very serious threat to this country was disgusting.

If you were just to trawl through this thread you would find very few examples of "vilification" by people here of Irishmen who fought in the British Army in WWII. And numerous examples of family memories which give the lie to the notion that there was any such widespread "vilification" of WWII veterans in the intervening years.

I have no problem with issuing a pardon to those men who committed the crime of desertion from their own country's armed forces 70 years ago. By which I mean an official rubber stamping of the de facto situation that those surviving are not going to be prosecuted in their feeble dotage for something that happened a long time ago.

As if they ever were.

But Minister Shatter is going too far in trying to rewrite history by "apologising" for the actions of his predecessors in government during the War Years and immediately afterwards. As he has done in this case and earlier ones.

There is nothing for us to be ashamed about with regard to our general policy of neutrality in the war. We were right. Dev was right. He not only did the expedient thing; he did the right moral thing.

And I say that as somebody who has never and will never vote Fianna Fail.

Credit where it is due.

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

Comments