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

getsomenuts

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps not. However, there's no harm in making sure you know how this forum is run.



It doesn't because it's irrelevant.

I have an opinion on Ireland's neutral stance in WWII. I firmly believe the country should have thrown in its lot with the Allies against the Axis powers, and disagree with that governments decision not to. However, I fully support that government's authority to make that decision, and to carry it out. That is the fundamental essence of the sovereign state. To carry out its functions, it is dependant on its executive branch, which includes the Army, to be capable of carrying out its policies. That means that as long as the policies are legal, the individuals who make up that executive branch must be able to be relied upon, by force of law if necessary.

When one joins the military, there are no caveats for personal morals or the opinion that something better should be done. When you raise your hand, you are placing yourself at the disposal of the government, to carry out the decisions of that government, and, by the way, subject yourself to military law. The term 'betray' is not misplaced, it is a betrayal of your word, and of the expectation of the taxpayer who the government represents.



This does not mean that the choice must be without consequence. The people in question made the choice toput themselves at the disposal of the Irish government, inherent in this is the possibility that the government may make a choice which you (often a voter) disagree with. That's the first consequence. The second consequence is the punitive cost of, basically, breaking your contract.



Assuming a long-term AWOL:

If not from turning themselves in, dishonorable discharge, a fine proportional to your training costs and time unserved, loss of benefits and in time of conflict, prison until the cessation of hostilities, lifetime bar from public employment.

If in time of conflict and voluntarily surrendered, discharge would be other than honorable, the fine still paid, loss of benefits. Bar from certain public employment.

If not in time of conflict, and voluntarily surrendered, Other than honorable and a smaller fine. Bar from uniformed employment. (Military, police, fire etc)

NTM

I find the bloody minded Irish mindset a weird and enraging one at times, well most of the time. Especially when Britain is involved in any discussion. I am British and am disgusted and repulsed with some of the comments put up in the forum, should ex ww2 soldiers be pardoned, and quite frankly shocked that people think it is OK to ill treat a whole section of their own community for decades do to vindictively and without mercy put out the only Irishmen in the Country with a real set of hairy balls with the guts to stand up and **** the ridiculous paddyism that infects the rational thought processes of so many of the indigenous. I find it hilarious that I now find myself in virtual paddy prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahhaha because the moderator dictators that are running this site have god complexes, and haven't got a proper set of hairy dangling balls like their BA serving counterparts. You can't handle the truth! and will find find a reasonable justification for the way you have treated your own on this one. What was any self respecting Irishman with any sense and a real set supposed to do, sit it out in neutral Ireland playing with themselves and waiting for the fight to come to them? no, the real men released the only way to put it to the fascists was to join a proper army the BA, lets face it the Irish was crap, OK there wre a few thousand riffle etc but the fight had to be taken to the nazis, how was Ireland going to do that even if un neutral. So whilst the ones who stayed behind bummed each other and wrote poetry with the priests, and stood the high moral ground and went around patting each other on the back for being good paddies. The proper fighting men did what had to be done. Then on there return they faced the same fascist bull**** they had joined up to fight against. Shame on you and your bloody minded paddyism.

I will join the forums under different names and email address's, its not rocket science numb-nuts, you will rue the day you put an Englishman in virtual paddy prison you ****s.

Manic Moran

Other - Please explain.

getsomenuts wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps not. However, there's no harm in making sure you know how this forum is run.



It doesn't because it's irrelevant.

I have an opinion on Ireland's neutral stance in WWII. I firmly believe the country should have thrown in its lot with the Allies against the Axis powers, and disagree with that governments decision not to. However, I fully support that government's authority to make that decision, and to carry it out. That is the fundamental essence of the sovereign state. To carry out its functions, it is dependant on its executive branch, which includes the Army, to be capable of carrying out its policies. That means that as long as the policies are legal, the individuals who make up that executive branch must be able to be relied upon, by force of law if necessary.

When one joins the military, there are no caveats for personal morals or the opinion that something better should be done. When you raise your hand, you are placing yourself at the disposal of the government, to carry out the decisions of that government, and, by the way, subject yourself to military law. The term 'betray' is not misplaced, it is a betrayal of your word, and of the expectation of the taxpayer who the government represents.



This does not mean that the choice must be without consequence. The people in question made the choice toput themselves at the disposal of the Irish government, inherent in this is the possibility that the government may make a choice which you (often a voter) disagree with. That's the first consequence. The second consequence is the punitive cost of, basically, breaking your contract.



Assuming a long-term AWOL:

If not from turning themselves in, dishonorable discharge, a fine proportional to your training costs and time unserved, loss of benefits and in time of conflict, prison until the cessation of hostilities, lifetime bar from public employment.

If in time of conflict and voluntarily surrendered, discharge would be other than honorable, the fine still paid, loss of benefits. Bar from certain public employment.

If not in time of conflict, and voluntarily surrendered, Other than honorable and a smaller fine. Bar from uniformed employment. (Military, police, fire etc)

NTM

I find the bloody minded Irish mindset a weird and enraging one at times, well most of the time. Especially when Britain is involved in any discussion. I am British and am disgusted and repulsed with some of the comments put up in the forum, should ex ww2 soldiers be pardoned, and quite frankly shocked that people think it is OK to ill treat a whole section of their own community for decades do to vindictively and without mercy put out the only Irishmen in the Country with a real set of hairy balls with the guts to stand up and **** the ridiculous paddyism that infects the rational thought processes of so many of the indigenous. I find it hilarious that I now find myself in virtual paddy prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahhaha because the moderator dictators that are running this site have god complexes, and haven't got a proper set of hairy dangling balls like their BA serving counterparts. You can't handle the truth! and will find find a reasonable justification for the way you have treated your own on this one. What was any self respecting Irishman with any sense and a real set supposed to do, sit it out in neutral Ireland playing with themselves and waiting for the fight to come to them? no, the real men released the only way to put it to the fascists was to join a proper army the BA, lets face it the Irish was crap, OK there wre a few thousand riffle etc but the fight had to be taken to the nazis, how was Ireland going to do that even if un neutral. So whilst the ones who stayed behind bummed each other and wrote poetry with the priests, and stood the high moral ground and went around patting each other on the back for being good paddies. The proper fighting men did what had to be done. Then on there return they faced the same fascist bull**** they had joined up to fight against. Shame on you and your bloody minded paddyism.

I will join the forums under different names and email address's, its not rocket science numb-nuts, you will rue the day you put an Englishman in virtual paddy prison you ****s.

If you are curious, I am posting this from Fort Irwin, California, where I am in the middle of a Bradley gunnery cycle as a US Army officer. Paddyism has little to do with my opinion.

The ban you are expecting will be along presently. The downside to the Mojave desert is that my laptop has a limited ability to access the Internet and I can't seem to conduct moderator actions on my mobile.

NTM

Manic Moran

Other - Please explain.

getz wrote: »

10s of thousands of american soldiers deserted and joined the canadian army,at the start of WW11 and did not face discrimination after it,

I'm not sure most of those were deserters. And even non deserters who joined the Canadian Army could face minor repercussions such as loss of citizenship. At the US government's request, the Canadians created a special axillary reserve, enlistment into which did not require an oath of allegiance, and it was into this that American volunteers were enlisted.

Further, the US military made it easy for servicemen to legally be discharged to go fight in the service of allies, in the extreme the Flying Tigers, for example, was a unit made up exclusively of such men.

NTM

Zaph

getsomenuts wrote: »

I find the bloody minded Irish mindset a weird and enraging one at times, well most of the time. Especially when Britain is involved in any discussion. I am British and am disgusted and repulsed with some of the comments put up in the forum, should ex ww2 soldiers be pardoned, and quite frankly shocked that people think it is OK to ill treat a whole section of their own community for decades do to vindictively and without mercy put out the only Irishmen in the Country with a real set of hairy balls with the guts to stand up and **** the ridiculous paddyism that infects the rational thought processes of so many of the indigenous. I find it hilarious that I now find myself in virtual paddy prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahhaha because the moderator dictators that are running this site have god complexes, and haven't got a proper set of hairy dangling balls like their BA serving counterparts. You can't handle the truth! and will find find a reasonable justification for the way you have treated your own on this one. What was any self respecting Irishman with any sense and a real set supposed to do, sit it out in neutral Ireland playing with themselves and waiting for the fight to come to them? no, the real men released the only way to put it to the fascists was to join a proper army the BA, lets face it the Irish was crap, OK there wre a few thousand riffle etc but the fight had to be taken to the nazis, how was Ireland going to do that even if un neutral. So whilst the ones who stayed behind bummed each other and wrote poetry with the priests, and stood the high moral ground and went around patting each other on the back for being good paddies. The proper fighting men did what had to be done. Then on there return they faced the same fascist bull**** they had joined up to fight against. Shame on you and your bloody minded paddyism.

I will join the forums under different names and email address's, its not rocket science numb-nuts, you will rue the day you put an Englishman in virtual paddy prison you ****s.

Did you really mean to post that last bit seeing as nobody mentioned a ban here? The fact that it's a copy of your disemvowelled post in Prison kind of gives it away a bit too. Anyway, you can join your fellow countryman/alter ego in the virtual Paddy prison. Just remember not to drop the soap in the showers, ok?

Saapodfd

Other - Please explain.

Defence Forces veterans are now starting a campaign to stop any "pardoning" of deserters.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Soldiers-against-any-pardoning-of-Defence-Forces-deserters/326323607401967

Maoltuile

Other - Please explain.

Saapodfd wrote: »

Defence Forces veterans are now starting a campaign to stop any "pardoning" of deserters.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Soldiers-against-any-pardoning-of-Defence-Forces-deserters/326323607401967

Thanks for that, cheers.

cruasder777

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

From the site :

"But now a group with the support from foreign media are trying to force the Irish Government to "pardon" those who deserted the Defence Forces during the Emergency and to shame those who volunteered to join the Irish Defence Forces to defend our nation."

...........With talk of "foreign media" etc my bet is its been started by a barstool republican, still 4 people like it.

Saapodfd

Other - Please explain.

cruasder777 wrote: »

From the site :

"But now a group with the support from foreign media are trying to force the Irish Government to "pardon" those who deserted the Defence Forces during the Emergency and to shame those who volunteered to join the Irish Defence Forces to defend our nation."

...........With talk of "foreign media" etc my bet is its been started by a barstool republican, still 4 people like it.

We are former Soldiers and like most of our comrades, both retired and serving are sickened by these people who are trying to force the Government to "pardon" those who deserted the Defence Forces.

We have no connection to any political party, ONE, UN Vets, etc but we would welcome any support.

The Facebook page was started on Sunday morning and is not an online partition.
We are trying to get the message out that these deserters have no support from either retired or serving Soldiers.

Manic Moran

Other - Please explain.

Saapodfd wrote: »

cruasder777 wrote: »

From the site :

"But now a group with the support from foreign media are trying to force the Irish Government to "pardon" those who deserted the Defence Forces during the Emergency and to shame those who volunteered to join the Irish Defence Forces to defend our nation."

...........With talk of "foreign media" etc my bet is its been started by a barstool republican, still 4 people like it.

We are former Soldiers and like most of our comrades, both retired and serving are sickened by these people who are trying to force the Government to "pardon" those who deserted the Defence Forces.

We have no connection to any political party, ONE, UN Vets, etc but we would welcome any support.

The Facebook page was started on Sunday morning and is not an online partition.
We are trying to get the message out that these deserters have no support from either retired or serving Soldiers.

Suggestion then. Keep as much as possible away from the emotives. "foreign media" is irrelevant. There is a movement to pardon these men. This page is to counter that movement. End of.

NTM

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

I have been posting on H & H on this and was a lot more relaxed about the campaign until I read the campaign website

http://www.forthesakeofexample.com/

What put me off was it includes the type of anti-Irish rhetoric I came across in the UK when I worked there back in the day.

The site itself contains a lot of references to Ireland being pro-Third Reich/Nazi's which is far from the truth. An example being the Donegal Corridor open to British planes and the repatriation of British Airmen. ( The occupation of France had made the Treaty Ports requirement obsolete ).

Ireland, the country, collaborated with Britain on matters of security , intelligence and economically throughout the war. History Ireland has a great article here

http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume6/issue1/features/?id=181

Viscount Cranborne acknowledged this in Cabinet papers

Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939-1945:[44]
“

1. They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off the Lough.
2. They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
3. They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative’s Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
4. They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
5. They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
6. They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
7. They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
8. They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
9. They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
10. They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
11. Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
12. They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
13. They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
14. They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II#The_Cranborne_report

(Sorry about the Wiki link but it saves me typing it out)

The Third Reich also conducted intimidation and reprisal air raids on Ireland especially for humanitarian assistance to Belfast following air raids.

Another example is the internment of pro-nazi IRA elements in the Curragh and the execution of activists and leaders. This had army involvement and at that time the IRA was conducting a campaign in Britain and "inviting" German invasion. There was also the Christmas Raid.

So the Irish army had a real role and not a "pretend" Dads Army role as seems to be suggested.

The site also mentions "alleged" deserters when there is nothing alleged about it and neither was there anything imaginary about the threats to the state. The climate of the time included the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact & the "Peace for our time"settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem.

Neither the Soviets or Americans entered the war till they were attacked and Switzerland, Spain & Portugal remained neutral.

Ireland was the friendliest neutral in the history of neutrality.

I am saddened by the tone of the campaign and god only knows what the organizers are thinking and it does seem to be alienating many people.

gbee

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

CDfm wrote: »

I am saddened by the tone of the campaign and god only knows what the organizers are thinking and it does seem to be alienating many people.

It's sad to think that an element of the Irish Mentality has not matured. 70 years or so on, if it were 20 years after the events maybe there was a point.

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

The Democratic Unionist Party have now unsurprisingly thrown their weight behind this campaign :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16680453

Assembly motion supports pardon for Ireland's WWII deserters
First Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland Eamon de Valera inspects a guard of honour at O'Connell Street in Dublin The then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, inspects his country's neutral army
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Irish soldiers who hid their medals
Pressure to pardon Irish deserters

The NI assembly is to consider a motion later to support a pardon for soldiers from the Irish Republic who deserted to fight for Britain during World War II.

Ireland was neutral during the conflict, but around 10% of its armed forces deserted to fight fascism.

On their return, many were placed on an official blacklist, banning them from jobs, benefits or pensions.

DUP MLA Peter Weir is supporting the motion and said it was time for a pardon.

"I want to show the solidarity of the Northern Ireland Assembly to a very good campaign which has been put forward by people in the Irish Republic to try and get a pardon and indeed honour and recognition for those brave men and women who served the Irish Republic in the Second World War against facism," he said.

"I don't see why the parties should not roll in behind this, this was very much an abuse of human rights.

"These were people who were denied employment and welfare which in many cases were enforced with starvation orders where families went hungry as a result of their commitment to the British army.

"I think this is an historic injustice which needs to be embraced."

Around 5,000 soldiers were formally dismissed from the Irish army for serving with the British.

Irish senator Mary Ann O'Brien met with Ireland's minister of justice, Alan Shatter, before Christmas with regard to the issue of a pardon and said he was actively working on the matter.

She expects to hear from him again in March and voiced her support for the assembly motion.

"We are lucky we are not Germany here, because we have to remember that these men deserted the Irish army to join the British army to fight for all of us, for our democracy and our future and for the freedom of Europe," she added.

"They came back here to find no hope of employment, there was terrible poverty but they were literally blacklisted.

"I can tell you something worse if they were unlucky enough to have been killed, their children would possibly have ended up in an orphanage as the poverty would have been such the widow would not have been allowed any allowance as she too was blacklisted.

"The child was tarnished with special letters after his or her name when it went into the orphanage so the orphanage would know it was the child of a deserter, so it would get special treatment."

This part in red (in particular) does not appear to be supported by any kind of evidence whatsoever, it is pure supposition to assume that an official categorisation was intended to identify individuals in order for them to recieve 'special treatment', let alone the underlying implication which is that they were categorised in order for them to recieve 'especially harsh treatment'.

I think both the BBC and Mary Ann O'Brien should be called on to clarify these comments. There really ought to be an Irish official government complaint on this matter, in order to force the BBC & Mary Ann O'Brien to present some supporting evidence to this emotive and totally unchallenged allegation.

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

It's sad to think that an element of the Irish Mentality has not matured. 70 years or so on, if it were 20 years after the events maybe there was a point.

They don't seem to be taking others sensitivities into account and the rhetoric is similar to the dail debates at the time that I linked to in H & H.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76657767&postcount=233

In fact Irelands "collaborative" neutrality amused Churchill

Winston Churchill enjoyed a good joke. According to Dennis Kelly, one of Churchill’s former literary assistants, the following was one of his boss’s favorite stories, one that ‘he used to adore telling’: ‘British bomber over Berlin, caught in the searchlights, flak coming up, one engine on fire, rear-gunner wounded, Irish pilot mutters, “Thank God Dev kept us out of this bloody war.”’i

He did invite DeValera to No 10 in 1953 where DeV asserted that he would never have taken Ireland out of the Commonwealth, a huge compliment and statement of approval.

So if these two could appreciate the realpolitick 60 years ago then others have a lot of catching up to do.

EDIT -churchill centre link http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship

Turbine

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

Am I only one who sees the irony in a Unionist MLA acknowledging the existence of the Irish republic before it was recognised by the UK (in 1949)?

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

Turbine wrote: »

Am I only one who sees the irony in a Unionist MLA acknowledging the existence of the Irish republic before it was recognised by the UK (in 1949)?

What's even more bizarre is that the senator at the heart of this story and these allegations (also at the heart of the bbc radio documentary where these 'singled out for especially cruel treatment' allegations appear to have began), was not even elected to the senate, being an appointment of the Taoiseach.

This person has no particular qualification or elected authority whatsoever, this is simply a person spouting hyperbole and so far going unchallenged by the media in general.

I will ask the question again - is there a shred of evidence to support Irish Senator Mary O'Brien's theory that the categorisation given to those children (of deserters) in state institutions was given in order that those children (of deserters) were to recieve particularly harsh treatment ?

Is there a molecule of evidence to support this ?

The bbc have no issue repeating this allegation multiple times, you would think at some point they would ask the question, or someone would ask the question. Another possibility would be that the journalists are aware of this and simply choose to continue to ignore it. That seems at least a possibility to me at this stage. The lopsided media coverage of this story in general is worrying in my view.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0528/1224297926221.html

Now she is joined in the upper house by Mary Ann O’Brien, founder of Lily O’Brien’s chocolate company. Senator O’Brien, who is also a founder of the Jack & Jill Children’s Foundation, is one of the Taoiseach’s 11 nominees.

neilled

Other - Please explain.

Turbine wrote: »

Am I only one who sees the irony in a Unionist MLA acknowledging the existence of the Irish republic before it was recognised by the UK (in 1949)?

We have a joke up north that MLA actually stands for "Member of the Lunatic Asylum" which sums up quite a few of the people in it as far as I'm concerned.

Manic Moran

Other - Please explain.

CDfm wrote: »

Winston Churchill enjoyed a good joke. According to Dennis Kelly, one of Churchill’s former literary assistants, the following was one of his boss’s favorite stories, one that ‘he used to adore telling’: ‘British bomber over Berlin, caught in the searchlights, flak coming up, one engine on fire, rear-gunner wounded, Irish pilot mutters, “Thank God Dev kept us out of this bloody war.”’

That was a cartoon which was published in a newspaper, but the protagonists were two soldiers in taking cover on D-Day with the caption being "Sure, Seamus, you can say what you like about Dev, but at least he kept us out of this war."

Not sure if the cartoon or the Churchill comment came first.

NTM

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

Morlar wrote: »

This person has no particular qualification or elected authority whatsoever, this is simply a person spouting hyperbole and so far going unchallenged by the media in general.

I hope the hyperbole does not extend to Alan Shatter because of his heritage.

The Irish Army did a very challenging job & which for some must have been counter intuitive which included the internment of former colleagues from the war of independence or members of their families.

An example of an IRA activist is Brendan Behan who was leniently treated both in the UK where he served a term in borstal & in Ireland where he fired at a policeman and was sentenced to 14 years for a capital offense. He was treated leniently because of his uncle Peader Kearney lyricist of the the National Anthem.

The Irish Army did make a huge difference .

gbee

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

CDfm wrote: »

The Irish Army did make a huge difference .

And to avoid tarnishing it's image it should pardon and backdate the pardon to seven years after the offence and draw a line in the sand.

Seven Years was the official punishment, it legally ends there. Any further persecution deserves compensation to surviving deserter members and their families.

therewillbe

Other - Please explain.

No.Shame the Death penalty was not in force here.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

Seven Years was the official punishment, it legally ends there. Any further persecution deserves compensation to surviving deserter members and their families.

What "further persecution" are you talking about?

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

CDfm wrote: »

I hope the hyperbole does not extend to Alan Shatter because of his heritage.

The Irish Army did a very challenging job & which for some must have been counter intuitive which included the internment of former colleagues from the war of independence or members of their families.

An example of an IRA activist is Brendan Behan who was leniently treated both in the UK where he served a term in borstal & in Ireland where he fired at a policeman and was sentenced to 14 years for a capital offense. He was treated leniently because of his uncle Peader Kearney lyricist of the the National Anthem.

The Irish Army did make a huge difference .

Whatever about Alan Shatter's support for this campaign, I just can't get over how a senator of the Irish Republic (Mary O'Brien) is making an allegation that children of WW2 Irish Army deserters who joined the B.A. were subsequently singled out for especially harsh treatment whilst resident in industrial schools purely on the basis of their parentage.

She's repeatedly made this claim across the media, radio programmes and BBC interviews included and not a single journalist (Irish or otherwise) appears to have challenged her to provide proof. It could be that the allegation fits in with certain pre-concieved, prejudicial notions about Ireland held by some elements in the British media ? Even if that's the case that's not an excuse applicable to Irish media.

On the other hand it could just be that it is knowingly false but a politically expedient 'outrageous claim' designed to grab attention and manipulate emotions. That undoubtedly serves the purposes of this campaign.

An allegation like that can't suddenly be accepted as historical fact and go unchallenged but that is what seems to be happening.

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That was a cartoon which was published in a newspaper, but the protagonists were two soldiers in taking cover on D-Day with the caption being "Sure, Seamus, you can say what you like about Dev, but at least he kept us out of this war."

Not sure if the cartoon or the Churchill comment came first.

NTM

Probably an Irish Press cartoon

It looks like they both appreciated the others position.

As the writer Clair Willis put it "“If neutrality was dangerous, belligerence looked like suicide.”

gbee

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gizmo555 wrote: »

What "further persecution" are you talking about?

This thread is an example IMO.

TBH, this should not be coming up, it a trivial matter, we've elected murderers to office ~ but we've said all this already.

Everybody played a part, it was desperate times, everybody is a hero. And it is history. Like it or not, it is history and we can't change that, it happened, and in this case a long time ago.

I can see a film next year, the 5,000 Irish Army Deserters who saved the world as the British Army was decimated and so much is owed to so few ~

Sollten wir alle feiern die Bemühungen aller Menschen, von allen Seiten.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

gizmo555 wrote: »

What "further persecution" are you talking about?

gbee wrote: »

This thread is an example IMO.

OK, so let me get this straight. A campaign is started to have soldiers who deserted the Irish Army to join the British Army pardoned. Some people, including posters on this thread, disagree and that amounts to "further persecution" which justifies the pardon being granted?

gbee

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gizmo555 wrote: »

OK, so let me get this straight. A campaign is started to have soldiers who deserted the Irish Army to join the British Army pardoned. Some people, including posters on this thread, disagree and that amounts to "further persecution" which justifies the pardon being granted?

Classic case of putting words in mouth. There is no 'SO' about it.

Facts: Dev gave a seven year punishment to these men.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

Classic case of putting words in mouth. There is no 'SO' about it.

I put no words in your mouth. I asked you what "further persecution" you meant and you began your reply with "This thread is an example IMO." The rest of your reply simply didn't address the question at all. Well, IMO, it's absurd to describe this thread as persecution of any kind.

gbee wrote: »

Facts: Dev gave a seven year punishment to these men.

It was a relatively lenient administrative sanction compared to the criminal prosecution and imprisonment they could have got. It was done and dusted by 1952 - sixty years ago. So, once again, what "further persecution" are you talking about - apart from this thread?

gbee

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gizmo555 wrote: »

I put no words in your mouth. I asked you what "further persecution" you meant and you began your reply with "This thread is an example IMO." Well, IMO, it's absurd to describe this thread as persecution of any kind.



It was a relatively lenient administrative sanction compared to the criminal prosecution and imprisonment they could have got. It was done and dusted by 1952 - sixty years ago. So, once again, what "further persecution" are you talking about - apart from this thread?

Overall, IMO we differ on this thread.

As soldiers, we obey, we don't question, it is over. If you believe Dev was your commander and chief, it's over, finished, complete.

Personally, I don't as I signed up for and swore and oath to the Irish Republic during the times of Donegan and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

Overall, IMO we differ on this thread.

As soldiers, we obey, we don't question, it is over. If you believe Dev was your commander and chief, it's over, finished, complete.

Personally, I don't as I signed up for and swore and oath to the Irish Republic during the times of Donegan and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh.

I'm sure that means something, but it beats the hell out of me what it is . . .

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

we serve and eat the black pudding sandwiches.

Zambia

Other - Please explain.

Sorry the black pudding sandwich thing has me befuddled as well?

Turbine

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gbee wrote: »

As soldiers, we obey, we don't question

But yet you support soldiers who questioned Ireland's decision to stay out of the war, and then deserted their country's army to go fight for a foreign army?

Maoltuile

Other - Please explain.

gbee wrote: »

I swore to the Republic, these deserters, had not.

Are we back to this rubbish of you claiming that there was no such thing as the Irish Army at the time?

neilled

Other - Please explain.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Are we back to this rubbish of you claiming that there was no such thing as the Irish Army at the time?

This is what the oath was, as established by the Defence Forces Temporary Provisions Act of 1923.

I do solemnly swear (or declare) that I have this day freely and voluntarily enlisted as a soldier in Oglaigh na hEireann; that I will faithfully serve as such for the period of from the day of 19XX (unless sooner discharged by proper authority) and under the conditions prescribed in accordance with law; and I will accept such pay, bounty, rations and clothing as may from time to time be prescribed in accordance with law;


And I further solemnly swear (or declare) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to our country and faithfully serve and defend her against all her enemies whomsoever and that I will submit myself to discipline, and obey without question the orders of the officers appointed over me according to law.

Zambia

Other - Please explain.

^^
Its pretty clear cut an Oath is an Oath.

As much as I disagree with the Irish stance during the war if you swore to serve her well that's what you should have done.

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

You just gotta wonder if the level of desertions made the politicians doubt whether they had effective control of the army and obedience of individuals during WWII.

If as Churchill estimated 25% of the population were against an alliance with Britain & General Richard Mulcahy thought the same , then the Government was very limited in what it could do.

Its unrealistic to think the desertions and the political decisions were mutually exclusive.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

Well, it appears from a speech given by Alan Shatter that this pardon is on the way:

Mr Shatter noted that for more than a decade the Irishmen who died fighting for Britain in the second World War had been commemorated in their own country.

“Many who fought in British uniforms during that war returned to Ireland. For too many years, their contribution in preserving European and Irish democracy was ignored.

“Some of those include members of our Defence Forces who left this island during that time to fight for freedom and who were subsequently dishonourably discharged from the Defence Forces,” said the Minister.

He said it was now appropriate to revisit the manner in which they were treated while also remembering that those who served in the Defence Forces throughout that time performed a crucial national duty.

“It is untenable that we commemorate those who died whilst continuing to ignore the manner in which our State treated the living, in the period immediately after World War II, who returned to our State having fought for freedom and democracy,” said Mr Shatter.

Whatever about the pardon, I do take very serious issue with this comment from his speech, but that's probably more a topic for the history forum than this one.

. . . we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy.

Bruthal

Zambia wrote: »

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

Maybe thats what they were doing when they left to fight the nazis.

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

CDfm wrote: »

I hope the hyperbole does not extend to Alan Shatter because of his heritage.

I think Alan Shatter's Jewish heritage has coloured his attitudes to Irish Neutrality during WW2.

I would be interested to know if the article below represents the Alan Shatter view, or the Fine Gael /Labour / Irish Government position. These seem massively condemnatory, sweeping statements if they are simply Mr Shatter's personal view.

I think it's odd that in the statement below he gives no reason for pardoning deserters, he merely says that anything else would be 'untenable'. Then makes a tenous connection between non deserters who joined the B.A. & whose who deserterd from the Irish Army who joined the B.A.

It's also noticable the way he avoids the use of the word 'Deserter' - e.g. 'the dishonourable discharge of soldiers who left to fight for the Allies as untenable' They did not leave to fight, that is not the issue, the issue is their desertion. The Minister of Defence it seems would like to avoid having to bring himself to even use that word.

It's also unusual to choose a Dept of Justice sponsored holocaust event on monday to announce this, then for it to only appear in the media in the Wednesday edition ?

Saying Ireland had no moral compass during WW2 on the basis of her Neutrality is absolutely shocking for a Minister of Defence. It may not have served jewish interests in hindsight but it was in Irelands self interest which should always be the priority when it comes to declaring war on countries which have not declared war on you.

STEPHEN COLLINS, Political Editor

Wed, Jan 25, 2012

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

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

Mr Shatter noted that for more than a decade the Irishmen who died fighting for Britain in the second World War had been commemorated in their own country.

“Many who fought in British uniforms during that war returned to Ireland. For too many years, their contribution in preserving European and Irish democracy was ignored.

“Some of those include members of our Defence Forces who left this island during that time to fight for freedom and who were subsequently dishonourably discharged from the Defence Forces,” said the Minister.

He said it was now appropriate to revisit the manner in which they were treated while also remembering that those who served in the Defence Forces throughout that time performed a crucial national duty.

“It is untenable that we commemorate those who died whilst continuing to ignore the manner in which our State treated the living, in the period immediately after World War II, who returned to our State having fought for freedom and democracy,” said Mr Shatter.

During that war 4,983 people deserted from the Defence Forces to join the Allied armies. Those who returned to Ireland were refused military pensions and were debarred from a range of State employment on the basis of an Emergency Powers Order passed by the Dáil in 1945. (( for a period of 7 years ) ) )

On Monday the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously backed the campaign for pardons for the servicemen involved.

In a significant speech on Monday night at the opening of The Shoah in Europe exhibition at the Department of Justice Mr Shatter said it was of vital importance that this and future generations remembered and learned from the horrors of the past.

He added that in the 1930s practically all visa requests from German Jews were refused by the Irish authorities.

“This position was maintained from 1939 to 1945 and we should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy.

“This moral bankruptcy was compounded by the then Irish government who, after the war, only allowed an indefensibly small number who survived the concentration camps to settle permanently in Ireland . . . and also by the visit of President de Valera to then German ambassador Edouard Hempel in 1945 to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue the government . . . utterly lost its moral compass,” said Mr Shatter.

© 2012 The Irish Times

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

Sure weren't we all Nazi's in those days

http://comeheretome.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/swastika-laundry-1912-1987/

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

CDfm wrote: »

Sure weren't we all Nazi's in those days

http://comeheretome.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/swastika-laundry-1912-1987/

Do Not let Alan Shatter see that webpage or we are all fcuked.

Morpheus

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

personal opinion? pardon them. Dev was a useless leader and doesn't deserve the honor with which his name is remembered by some. we were socially a 3rd world country up until the late 80s thanks to him and his retarded method of leadership. We should've declared war. We had no moral compass as we had a leader with no moral fibre. just my own opinion. many from my family left and went to serve in the BA in both world wars. some didn't return, some did and suffered horrendously stupid criticism from former friends and neighbours, they subsequently left Ireland to start over, and only managed to return after many years of life in US/Canada/UK where they were honored for their services.

Oasis_Dublin

Other - Please explain.

I have voted that they should not be afforded a pardon. I had relations who fought in the war, but they did not have to desert their country to do so. Much as I appreciate that by modern standards, what they did seems honourable, contemporary views on desertion must be taken into account. Reading back into history is not the way to judge them.

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

Rte has finally picked it up however their take on this is significantly more reserved than the Irish Times coverage. This story is front page headline # 1 of the Irish Times print paper, but buried on the IT website.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0125/shattera.html#article

Pardon for Irish WWII soldiers being explored

Updated: 11:56, Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Minister for Defence Alan Shatter has said a serious examination is taking place into the possible pardoning of Irish soldiers who deserted from the Defence Forces to fight for the Allies in World War II.

Speaking on Morning Ireland Minister Shatter said these soldiers had fought against fascism and contributed to the future of freedom and democracy in Europe.

He said they were penalised by a regulation barring them from being employed in any public service job. **FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS**

He welcomed the passing of a motion in the Stormont Assembly earlier this week calling for a pardon for the soldiers.

Minister Shatter said he believes that it is right that the Republic of Ireland now revisit how this issue was dealt with historically.

He said there were legal matters that required consideration but he has received legal advice from the Attorney General and will discuss the issue with his cabinet colleagues.

He expects to make an announcement later this year.

Unclear why comments made in public on monday are only surfacing on a Wednesday (mid-day in the case of Rte).

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

Morlar wrote: »

Rte has finally picked it up however their take on this is significantly more reserved than the Irish Times coverage. This story is front page headline # 1 of the Irish Times print paper, but buried on the IT website.

The Irish Times has in recent years been very pro-British military, at times some of its coverage has practically amounted to free recruitment advertising for the BA. At least they're consistent . . .

shaneybaby

No - they should NOT be Pardoned.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The Irish Times has in recent years been very pro-British military, at times some of its coverage has practically amounted to free recruitment advertising for the BA. At least they're consistent . . .

Really? Pro-british military? I know it's probably an impossible question but any links or anything? I read a few papers everyday and i've never noticed the times to be heading that direction.

Morlar

Other - Please explain.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The Irish Times has in recent years been very pro-British military, at times some of its coverage has practically amounted to free recruitment advertising for the BA. At least they're consistent . . .

I agree. The Independent are also 'soft on unionism, soft on the causes of unionism' but have not picked up this development (Rte & IT links above) to the story.

At this point is's unclear what the development to the story is, the tone of the Rte piece is very different to the IT one. The Rte one is basically 'yep still being looked at', while the Irish Times one was a front page headline today - 'practically a foregone conclusion now !' sort of thing.

Earlier on during the development of this story Alan Shatter gave out conflicting information too.

Or to be more precise conflicting information appeared in the media which was attributed to Minister of Defence Alan Shatter.

One story appeared saying that the bbc radio documentary on this subject of a few weeks ago was the first he had heard of the issue of pardons (he had been mentioned in the documentary if memory serves).

Another article then appeared saying he had been considering pardoning them since june of last year.

gizmo555

Other - Please explain.

shaneybaby wrote: »

Really? Pro-british military? I know it's probably an impossible question but any links or anything? I read a few papers everyday and i've never noticed the times to be heading that direction.

A lot of their stuff is behind their paywall, but I'm thinking for example of the series of articles they ran in 2008 under the title "A Soldier's Diary" by Patrick Bury who was serving in Afghanistan as a Royal Irish Regiment officer.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Sure weren't we all Nazi's in those days

http://comeheretome.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/swastika-laundry-1912-1987/

Morlar wrote: »

Do Not let Alan Shatter see that webpage or we are all fcuked.

I remember those vans very well. They were all over the roads in Dublin when I was a kid. No one bothered with them - they had been around since the 1920s I think? The Nazis gave to the swastika the image that prevails today.

CDfm

Other - Please explain.

Morlar wrote: »

At this point is's unclear what the development to the story is, the tone of the Rte piece is very different to the IT one. The Rte one is basically 'yep still being looked at', while the Irish Times one was a front page headline today - 'practically a foregone conclusion now !' sort of thing.


.

It would be a real slap in the face for the soldiers that hung around and stuck behind Ireland.

Its calling them cowards and nazi's and all the rest.