Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Irish Soldiers who deserted during WWII to join the British Army & Starvation order
Comments
-
Well I'm on the side of the Irish men & their families who went out to fight Nazi Germany & the Japanese, and I'm against the disgraceful treatment by the Irish state of those same Irish men on their return to Ireland . . .
No anti-Irishness intended.
Its fine to look at it from a purely British perspective , but , should you not have some empathy and understanding for the Irish State and the decisions of its leaders in matters of its survivaland security.0 -
These guys were not shot.
It is a fair question, how were deserters from the British Army treated in WWII ?
So if you want to benchmark it how did the British treat their own deserters ?
EDIT - I read somewhere about a 1947 British offer of leniency to deserters where 837 turned themselves in but cant find what happened to them ?
By 1939 the only military act that could get the death penalty was mutiny, it didn't apply to desertion.
In WWII, 47 British servicemen were executed. 43 for murder, 3 for Mutiny and Theodore Schurch who was executed at Pentonville for treachery.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »By 1939 the only military act that could get the death penalty was mutiny, it didn't apply to desertion.
In WWII, 47 British servicemen were executed. 43 for murder, 3 for Mutiny and Theodore Schurch who was executed at Pentonville for treachery.
But what punishment was given to deserters from the British Army in WWII or those that went AWOL.0 -
Its fine to look at it from a purely British perspective , but , should you not have some empathy and understanding for the Irish State and the decisions of its leaders in matters of its survivaland security.
NO^
Thanks to the RAF & the RN, the Battle of Britain had secured our safety from an all out invasion by the Nazi's, and so it is whithin this light that the Irish State should have then lent its full force to the allied fight against NAZI Germany. Its not as if the State were unaware of what was happening on Mainland Europe!!!
Every man was needed, and those Irish who went to fight tyranny were heroes.
PS: Can't believe that in this day & age I'm having to argue for those who fought against the NAZI'S.0 -
bobbysands81 wrote: »Britain, through her death squads over the centuries and through direct anti-Irish Government policies, had a hand in the deaths of well over 1 million Irish people, do you really think Hitler would have been worse for us?I think you are swimming against the tide there Oasis, ths Irish men who deserted the Irish army did so against the backdrop of an inward looking, isolated neutral Ireland, a neutral & neutered Irish state who should have rowed in behind the Allies 100% against Hitler & Nazi Germany!
Those Irish men who saw the bigger picture left these shores and fought Hitler, they were heroes in my book, and they did the Allied war effort proud, they were true Irish heroes and they should have been treated like heroes on their return to Ireland.
They (and their sons) all deserve a pardon > hurry up Mr Shatter.
All countries in WWII were neutral unless invaded, with the exception of France and Britain ( and Empires) who choose to go to war.0 -
Advertisement
-
NO^
Thanks to the RAF & the RN, the Battle of Britain had secured our safety from an all out invasion by the Nazi's, and so it is whithin this light that the Irish State should have then lent its full force to the allied fight against NAZI Germany. Its not as if the State were unaware of what was happening on Mainland Europe!!!
Every man was needed, and those Irish who went to fight tyranny were heroes.
PS: Can't believe that in this day & age I'm having to argue for those who fought against the NAZI'S.
The people living then were not living in "this day and age". The modern version of the war sees it as a war against the most evil racist power ever by nice and kind democracies. In 1939, however, the Nazis had not started the holocaust. All belligerents were racist - all had racist laws on the books, or had de jure discrimination against people based on race in territory they occupied. A war with Britain, would be a war with the British Empire - which in 1939 included South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya ( all white run), India ( white run), and majority white colonial states with discriminatory laws against aboriginal populations. The US of course had Jim Crow - but it was neutral in 1939.0 -
PS: Can't believe that in this day & age I'm having to argue for those who fought against the NAZI'S.
Oh dear, I hope you are not doing a Godwin's on me.
The record of the Irish and the Irish State on the Nazi's is here and I have posted it in detail. Not only that Ireland dealt harshly with its own citizens who were a threat to Britain including the death penalty.
It used the starvation order against its own citizens who were members of paramilitary organizations too.
And this was an internal threat to the Irish State and an external/sabotage threat to wartime Britain.
Well maybe we can campaign for Eddie Slovak to be pardoned too
http://worldwar2history.info/Army/deserters.html
And the question is being asked how did the British deal with its own deserters ?[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The only military offence which retained capital punishment was mutiny. Like civilian courts, courts-martials could also sentence people to death for High Treason, murder and acts covered by the Treachery Act 1940.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So following 1930, British military personnel could NOT be sentenced to death for offences such as desertion and cowardice. These offences still exist in military law, and are still viewed extremely seriously by the military establishment. Since 1930, they would, as they did during World War Two, involve terms of imprisonment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/history_cm.htm[/FONT]
So why should the Irish State not want its own security to have been protected.
Did Britain leave itself unprotected ?
I really fail to see your logic here.0 -
Well I can't really add any more than what I've already posted in # 52, 54, 61, 65.
I'll leave it there.
Bye.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think you are swimming against the tide there Oasis, ths Irish men who deserted the Irish army did so against the backdrop of an inward looking, isolated neutral Ireland, a neutral & neutered Irish state who should have rowed in behind the Allies 100% against Hitler & Nazi Germany!
Those Irish men who saw the bigger picture left these shores and fought Hitler, they were heroes in my book, and they did the Allied war effort proud, they were true Irish heroes and they should have been treated like heroes on their return to Ireland.
They (and their sons) all deserve a pardon > hurry up Mr Shatter.
Speaking as an Irishman, whose Irish relatives fought on the Allied side in the war, I don't agree with what you say at all. Information about Nazi atrocities was not widespread at the start of the war (which could not be said when de Valera went to the German Ambassador after the war, for example). Do you have the same disdain for our Swedish, Swiss and Portuguese friends?!
As I said previously, I absolutely wouldn't kick up a fuss if they were pardoned. I just think the reaction of the state must be put in a historical context. Looking back and judging it by today's standards is not a logical way of looking at it.
Also, much as I hate Fianna Fáil and a lot of the actions of de Valera over the years, Irish neutrality in WWII was not inward looking. Irish statehood was not even twenty years old in 1939. Similarly, we would have been overrun in very little time had we declared with the Allies, and tempted Hitler to try and enter Britain from the west. Again, I fear you are judging the actions of political leaders by the standards of 2012, with our recent visits of British heads of state and the appointment of an Irish Catholic as the Northern Ireland soccer manager (!).0 -
-
Well I can't really add any more than what I've already posted in # 52, 54, 61, 65.
I respect that you have a different POV to me & it is a tricky question and that's why I have loaded it up with links. General Richard Mulcahy's view in Ireland was that a full on alliance (with Britain) could have caused civil war and that was to no-ones advantage.
Its history and not politics and the real issue's are how the participants thought.
Lord Cranborne's letter to the Cabinet is very effusive about Ireland & the Irish governments cooperation with Britain and lest we forget this the "peace for our time" era when small new states such as Czechoslovakia got sacrificed.
Of course, if Churchill had a view it would be great to see, but it is about them and not us.
Sorry to see you bowing out.0 -
-
The people living then were not living in "this day and age". The modern version of the war sees it as a war against the most evil racist power ever by nice and kind democracies. In 1939, however, the Nazis had not started the holocaust. All belligerents were racist - all had racist laws on the books, or had de jure discrimination against people based on race in territory they occupied. A war with Britain, would be a war with the British Empire - which in 1939 included South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya ( all white run), India ( white run), and majority white colonial states with discriminatory laws against aboriginal populations. The US of course had Jim Crow - but it was neutral in 1939.
The Kristallnacht happened on the 9th to 10th November 1938.
Just prior to WWII Nicholas Winton transported over 600 jewish children from Czechoslovakia, by September 1939 ovewr 70000 jewish refugees had arrived in Britain alone.
The world new what Hitler was like long before the death camps were liberated.0 -
The people living then were not living in "this day and age". The modern version of the war sees it as a war against the most evil racist power ever by nice and kind democracies. In 1939, however, the Nazis had not started the holocaust.
True the Nazi'z had not committed the Holocaust in 1939, but surely by 43/44/45 the state might have cut some slack to those who wished to fight The Nazi's? I honestly can't say anymore Yahew, you've got my drift & my point of view on this, and I don't want to just keep batting too & frow on this issue. I had family connections in both wars, so I can appreciate this subject very deeply.0 -
wake up and smell the coffee, when you realize Devs gamble in keeping ireland out of the war was foolhardy,and they paid a price for it afterwards,as churchill said,our merchant seamen as well as public opinion generally take it much amiss that we should have to carry irish supplies through air and u-boat attacks and subsidize them hansomely when de valera is quite content to sit happy and see us stranded,yet even gandhi [the great indian pacifist ] urged and recruited over one and a half million indians to fight for the british against the nazi,by staying neutral ireland did not get the help that other european countries got after the war to build up their economies,in fact ireland was a outcast,and was rejected membership of the united nations,on the grounds that it had made no contubition to the war against fascism,hardly anything to be proud of.and yet irish men and woman gave their lives in their thousands to help in the war effortThe people living then were not living in "this day and age". The modern version of the war sees it as a war against the most evil racist power ever by nice and kind democracies. In 1939, however, the Nazis had not started the holocaust. All belligerents were racist - all had racist laws on the books, or had de jure discrimination against people based on race in territory they occupied. A war with Britain, would be a war with the British Empire - which in 1939 included South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya ( all white run), India ( white run), and majority white colonial states with discriminatory laws against aboriginal populations. The US of course had Jim Crow - but it was neutral in 1939.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »The Kristallnacht happened on the 9th to 10th November 1938.
Just prior to WWII Nicholas Winton transported over 600 jewish children from Czechoslovakia, by September 1939 ovewr 70000 jewish refugees had arrived in Britain alone.
The world new what Hitler was like long before the death camps were liberated.
None of this was the same as the camps. People were escaping discrimination, not death camps. The British empire ( which during the war goes on to starve 4 million Indians by 1943) was discriminatory in Africa, India, Oceania against natives, blacks and indigenous peoples. After war it kills 30,000 kenyans who want independence, often by castration, and holds onto it's colonies until a 60's labour government. Without the war, it would have - and might still be - maintaining those colonies - Rhodesia, Kenya, South Africa - which were white supremacist.
In 1939 there was little to chose. We stayed out. The war might have bogged down in france, or ended in a quick Allied victory, which would have resulted in the Empire growing, not fading.
In 1939 nobody can tell.0 -
None of this was the same as the camps. People were escaping discrimination, not death camps. The British empire ( which during the war goes on to starve 4 million Indians by 1943) was discriminatory in Africa, India, Oceania against natives, blacks and indigenous peoples. After war it kills 30,000 kenyans who want independence, often by castration, and holds onto it's colonies until a 60's labour government. Without the war, it would have - and might still be - maintaining those colonies - Rhodesia, Kenya, South Africa - which were white supremacist.
In 1939 there was little to chose. We stayed out. The war might have bogged down in france, or ended in a quick Allied victory, which would have resulted in the Empire growing, not fading.
In 1939 nobody can tell.
No one can tell what will happen in the war, but you still feel obliged to bring up Kenya?
Why did so many people from all over europe flock to fight Franco?0 -
wake up and smell the coffee, when you realize Devs gamble in keeping ireland out of the war was foolhardy,and they paid a price for it afterwards,as churchill said,our merchant seamen as well as public opinion generally take it much amiss that we should have to carry irish supplies through air and u-boat attacks and subsidize them hansomely when de valera is quite content to sit happy and see us stranded,
Public opinion, a bit ungrateful methinks.
Look what happened in France, Vichy and all that ?
The sheer numbers of Irish serving in the British Forces and working for the war effort should have put that to bed and our efforts in dealing with the IRA's membership and British Campaign yet we are begrudged our own internal security needs.
Tsk tsk.our merchant seamen as well as public opinion generally take it much amiss that we should have to carry irish supplies through air and u-boat attacks and subsidize them hansomely when de valera is quite content to sit happy and see us stranded
Submarine technology advanced so much that the Treaty Ports were not needed and it was safer for the British to be based in Iceland and the Germans in France.
Churchill was so WWI with that.yet even gandhi [the great indian pacifist ] urged and recruited over one and a half million indians to fight for the british against the nazi,
In return for the promise of independence.
Very generous that.
We gave our help for nothing.by staying neutral ireland did not get the help that other european countries got after the war to build up their economies,
Ireland benefited under the Marshall Plan AFAIKin fact ireland was a outcast,and was rejected membership of the united nations,on the grounds that it had made no contubition to the war against fascism,hardly anything to be proud of.and yet irish men and woman gave their lives in their thousands to help in the war effort
True
http://www.ipa.ie/pdf/IRELAND%20AT%20THE%20UNITED%20NATIONS%20By%20Noel%20Dorr.pdf
Maybe because our friends that we so generously supported were not as public in their thanks.
Don't forget Spain, Portugal & Greece were hardly democratic post WWII whereas Ireland was a model of political stability.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you are swimming against the tide there Oasis, ths Irish men who deserted the Irish army did so against the backdrop of an inward looking, isolated neutral Ireland, a neutral & neutered Irish state who should have rowed in behind the Allies 100% against Hitler & Nazi Germany!
Those Irish men who saw the bigger picture left these shores and fought Hitler, they were heroes in my book, and they did the Allied war effort proud, they were true Irish heroes and they should have been treated like heroes on their return to Ireland.
They (and their sons) all deserve a pardon > hurry up Mr Shatter.
Their sons?
Only the Irish who deserted the Irish army and joined the British army were treated badly.
The British would have been better off to stay neutral too.
The Germany war plan was to create an empire from the Rhine to the Ural and enslave the peoples there and steal their resources.
They had no interest or ability to invade the British isles.
One of the reason we become an Independent nation was so we did not have fight in large wars that were none of our business.
The BBC seem to take the view these men were only doing what the Irish state should have done anyway.
They see the war as a moral crusade against evil.
The British empire that had taken over one third of the would and committed genocide against native peoples all over the world was were not in a position to condemn the Germans for that they had been doing themselves.
if the soldier shad joined the British army directly without deserting the Irish army there would have have had so much trouble after the war.0 -
Their sons?
Only the Irish who deserted the Irish army and joined the British army were treated badly.
The British would have been better off to stay neutral too.
The Germany war plan was to create an empire from the Rhine to the Ural and enslave the peoples there and steal their resources.
They had no interest or ability to invade the British isles.
One of the reason we become an Independent nation was so we did not have fight in large wars that were none of our business.
The BBC seem to take the view these men were only doing what the Irish state should have done anyway.
They see the war as a moral crusade against evil.
The British empire that had taken over one third of the would and committed genocide against native peoples all over the world was were not in a position to condemn the Germans for that they had been doing themselves.
if the soldier shad joined the British army directly without deserting the Irish army there would have have had so much trouble after the war.
I know the daughter of a man who joined the Royal Engineers in 1941. When he returned to Ireland, he was treated very badly. Whenever he applied for a job, as soon as the employer found out he had been "abroad" for five years, the job was mysteriously filled.
Anyway, based on the rest of your post, there isn't a lot of point debating with you.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »He took a British Passport and was only tried for treason up to the point his passport expired.
It was tenuous, but how many people actually mourned his death? Also, as I said in a subsequent post, there is some speculation that he did a deal which kept his wife away from the gallows.
My point though with regards the difference, is that Joyce left the country he had lived and worked in (and became a political activist in) for the majority of his life to join a nation Britain was at war with and set about to subvert Britain.
I know there is a strong argument that he was unfairly tried for treason, but I don't see his death as being any great loss to the gene pool.
William Joyce went to Germany before the war started.
In late August 1939, shortly before war was declared, Joyce and his wife Margaret fled to Germany.
perhaps only his friend and family missed him. it was still not right to hang him.
I am against the death penalty.
I heard the speculation about his wife. Not sure how true it is.
I think that she was not considered very important and hanging a woman was not something the wanted to be seen doing.
In hanging Joyce them made him seem like a victim. If he was not hanged he might be seen a mad man who went to work for some very evil people.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Britain and Ireland were not at war,
Britain and Ireland were not at war but had been many time in the past.
Germany was never at war with Ireland.0 -
ireland was refused help under the marshall plan,devs love for the nazi did not stop even near the end of the war , devs well known sympathy for the nazi did not stop at telling germany he was sorry for his death ,japan was the only other country in the world that sent their sympathies,dev also made ireland a safe haven for wanted nazi criminals,some of them were involved in ethnic cleansing.he told one to change his name so if a goverment ask him if that man was living in ireland,he could say;i dont have anyone by that name living herePublic opinion, a bit ungrateful methinks.
Look what happened in France, Vichy and all that ?
The sheer numbers of Irish serving in the British Forces and working for the war effort should have put that to bed and our efforts in dealing with the IRA's membership and British Campaign yet we are begrudged our own internal security needs.
Tsk tsk.
Submarine technology advanced so much that the Treaty Ports were not needed and it was safer for the British to be based in Iceland and the Germans in France.
Churchill was so WWI with that.
In return for the promise of independence.
Very generous that.
We gave our help for nothing.
Ireland benefited under the Marshall Plan AFAIK
True
http://www.ipa.ie/pdf/IRELAND%20AT%20THE%20UNITED%20NATIONS%20By%20Noel%20Dorr.pdf
Maybe because our friends that we so generously supported were not as public in their thanks.
Don't forget Spain, Portugal & Greece were hardly democratic post WWII whereas Ireland was a model of political stability.0 -
Oasis_Dublin wrote: »Speaking as an Irishman, whose Irish relatives fought on the Allied side in the war, I don't agree with what you say at all. Information about Nazi atrocities was not widespread at the start of the war (which could not be said when de Valera went to the German Ambassador after the war, for example). Do you have the same disdain for our Swedish, Swiss and Portuguese friends?!
As I said previously, I absolutely wouldn't kick up a fuss if they were pardoned. I just think the reaction of the state must be put in a historical context. Looking back and judging it by today's standards is not a logical way of looking at it.
Also, much as I hate Fianna Fáil and a lot of the actions of de Valera over the years, Irish neutrality in WWII was not inward looking. Irish statehood was not even twenty years old in 1939. Similarly, we would have been overrun in very little time had we declared with the Allies, and tempted Hitler to try and enter Britain from the west. Again, I fear you are judging the actions of political leaders by the standards of 2012, with our recent visits of British heads of state and the appointment of an Irish Catholic as the Northern Ireland soccer manager (!).
I could see the Germans bombing us, but could not see how they could transport and supply and army big enough to invade Ireland.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I know the daughter of a man who joined the Royal Engineers in 1941. When he returned to Ireland, he was treated very badly. Whenever he applied for a job, as soon as the employer found out he had been "abroad" for five years, the job was mysteriously filled.
Was her father a deserter from the Irish army?
I know my Grand father employed a man who served in the British army.
the man he employed suffered shell shock from his time in combat and hard a drink problem and would disappear for weeks at at time. He never fired him.
Ireland must had had a lot of Irish who had served in the Crown forces at one time or another.
My mothers cousin served on a royal navy Submarine during WWII.Fratton Fred wrote: »Anyway, based on the rest of your post, there isn't a lot of point debating with you.
Not sure why?
My opinion is based on my reading of history.
It is that not nothing comes good come from war, but killing and misery and from the ash of old wars comes the seeds of new wars.0 -
ireland was refused help under the marshall plan,devs love for the nazi did not stop even near the end of the war , devs well known sympathy for the nazi did not stop at telling germany he was sorry for his death ,japan was the only other country in the world that sent their sympathies,dev also made ireland a safe haven for wanted nazi criminals,some of them were involved in ethnic cleansing.he told one to change his name so if a goverment ask him if that man was living in ireland,he could say;i dont have anyone by that name living here
Where do the badly educated English classes pick up this nonsense?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »No one can tell what will happen in the war, but you still feel obliged to bring up Kenya?
Why did so many people from all over europe flock to fight Franco?
People did come for all over Europe and America to fight Franco, but not enough or well enough lead to change the course of the war.
People fight in wars for many reasons.
Sad truth is it is not that hard to persuade men to kill each other in a war.
“It is only the dead who have seen the end of war”. Plato
WHY MEN FIGHT
by George S. Patton, Jr.
1927
(A Posthumous Study)
http://www.m1-garand.com/Info%20Pages/World_War_II_infopage15.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »The Kristallnacht happened on the 9th to 10th November 1938.
Just prior to WWII Nicholas Winton transported over 600 jewish children from Czechoslovakia, by September 1939 ovewr 70000 jewish refugees had arrived in Britain alone.
The world new what Hitler was like long before the death camps were liberated.
Maybe Britain would spent it resources better giving refuge to more Jews rather that going to war.
maybe that is just because I cannot seen any good coming for war.
Kristallnacht did happen in 1938 and was part of the harassment of Jews in Germany. before the war the German main interest was in expelling Jews and stealing their money and property before they left.
This happened to Iraqi Jews in the years after WWII.
Last Days in Babylon: The History of a Family, the Story of a Nation
Marina Benjamin
The Genocide did not start until 1942. In 1942, the Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler ordered the Lublin District SS- und Polizeiführer Odilo Globocnik to build the first extermination camps during Aktion Reinhard (1941–43), the operation to annihilate every Jew in the General Government (occupied Poland).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp0
Advertisement