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

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

1457910

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Other - Please explain.
    Sorry the black pudding sandwich thing has me befuddled as well?


  • Site Banned Posts: 317 ✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 634 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,234 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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/


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    CDfm wrote: »

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


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 2,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭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).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭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 . . .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    No - they should NOT be Pardoned.
    CDfm wrote: »
    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.

    No it would not. This thinking is thankfully in a minority. I see it as a maturing and a celebration of all efforts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Other - Please explain.
    gbee wrote: »
    No it would not. This thinking is thankfully in a minority. I see it as a maturing and a celebration of all efforts.

    That is not how a modern army runs and IMHO it politically destabilized the state.

    You have a very blase opinion about how shaky the democracy was for the nascent state of Ireland.

    An army and its soldiers are responsible to government and its internal army hierarchy.

    That Ireland was about the only new post WWI democracy to survive post WWII says something and the deserters did not help.

    Shades of the Curragh Mutiny gbee old son.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Other - Please explain.
    Morlar wrote: »
    the tone of the Rte piece is very different to the IT one.

    It certainly was on "Morning Ireland" today (25/01/12)

    Presenter: "Are you going to pardon the thousands of Irish soldiers who deserted the Irish Army to fight with the Allies in the Second World War?"

    Shatter: "waffle wafflle waffle . . . "

    Presenter: "But do you want to pardon deserters?"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It certainly was on "Morning Ireland" today (25/01/12)

    Presenter: "Are you going to pardon the thousands of Irish soldiers who deserted the Irish Army to fight with the Allies in the Second World War?"

    Shatter: "waffle wafflle waffle . . . "

    Presenter: "But do you want to pardon deserters?"

    Thanks, I missed that. Did he give a straight answer or outline his position on this question at any point at all ?

    Again this seems inconsistent with todays Irish Times headline.
    How would you characterise the media coverage ? Was it pro-pardon or neutral on the subject ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Other - Please explain.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Thanks, I missed that. Did he give a straight answer or outline his position on this question at any point at all ?

    Well, maybe I was being a little unfair, but Alan Shatter is certainly a politician who is very fond of the sound of his own voice and would take five minutes to answer if you asked him the time of day. The gist of it was that I think he would like to pardon these men and is awaiting advice from the Attorney General as to whether he can or should. In fainress, I should say he expressly and graciously acknowledged the service given by the men who served for the duration of the war in the Irish army.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Again this seems inconsistent with todays Irish Times headline.
    How would you characterise the media coverage ? Was it pro-pardon or neutral on the subject ?

    The "Irish Times" has been very pro-pardon, RTE and the "Sunday Business Post" considerably more skeptical. Tom McGurk had a lengthy opinion piece in the SBP on Sunday (also behind a paywall, so can't link). RTE had him on this morning too, after Shatter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Other - Please explain.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    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.

    From memory they predated WWI and the date 1912 spring to mind.

    The Swastika or Hooked Cross was also a religious symbol as a variant of a cross and I have seen it on a 19th Century altar cloth and was told it was in use in the orthodox churches way back over a 1,000 years.

    And the Hitlers were in Dublin around 1912

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60837165

    Coincidence or what ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Other - Please explain.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Well, maybe I was being a little unfair, but Alan Shatter is certainly a politician who is very fond of the sound of his own voice and would take five minutes to answer if you asked him the time of day. The gist of it was that I think he would like to pardon these men and is awaiting advice from the Attorney General as to whether he can or should. In fainress, I should say he expressly and graciously acknowledged the service given by the men who served for the duration of the war in the Irish army.

    No one is arguing their bravery in the field of battle or their rights to hold their opinions or attend war memorials or anything like that.

    Take Brother Columbanus -Monk & D-Day Veteran and read his story

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-servicemen-airbrushed-out-of-history-says-dday-veteran-481016.html

    He says no-one really knew the extent of the horrors until the closing stages of the war.

    The war is over.

    Our army has acted as a peace keeping force in other countries and its chief role has been as a domestic force against para-military threats to our constitutional form of government.

    Now I always acknowledge different traditions to my own & have a thread running on this issue in the history forum.

    Here though, there are issues of duty which are massive and which our armed forces have been asked to provide the state with since the 1930's when you had to potential military threats/private armies in the form of the IRA & the Blueshirts. How do you tackle the issue of mass IRA internment without trial etc that happened during the war ?

    So how can you properly address an issue such as this without undermining the concepts such as duty and the governments authority over the armed forces individually & collectively. ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    It looks like the other side of this story is mainly covered by letters to editors rather than by editorials themselves or their journalists :

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/just-deserts-or-just-deserters-3000368.html

    Just deserts or just deserters?

    Regarding the possible pardon of deserters from the Irish Defence Forces during World War Two recently announced by Defence Minister Alan Shatter: The most pertinent question we should ask ourselves is who do we pardon? The argument in favour seems to suggest that any Irish soldier who subsequently joined the British forces should be pardoned.

    However, this point ignores the fact that not all of the deserters actually joined up again. Many left for higher-paying jobs in the labour-hungry British war industry. Do they deserve to be pardoned?

    And, if not, does that mean that their contribution to the Allied victory is less than those who fought in the front line? We should not forget that some Irish soldiers simply deserted and went home to their families.

    Another issue which needs to be addressed is the issue of the Local Defence Force. Irish military documents of the time show that the LDF's effective strength was far below its paper strength for the duration of the war. The authorities had little doubt that the majority of these missing men had left for the UK. Are they to be pardoned also?

    We also need to be wary of projecting our values backwards in time to a period where they do not fit.

    The pardon campaign revolves around the fact that the deserters joined the fight against Nazism -- that their contribution to the greater good outweighs their guilt for desertion.

    I question whether this debate would even be taking place if thousands of Irish soldiers deserted and joined the Wehrmacht. We must be careful that we do not turn World War Two into a one-dimensional crusading conflict.

    Finally, we need to understand Emergency Powers Order 362 in the context of the time. Dismissing the deserters from the Defence Forces was a way for De Valera to deal with them quickly and quietly. Enormous damage had been done to Ireland's international image by neutrality, the American Note and De Valera's visit to the German Legation in 1945. It can well be imagined that he was eager to avoid further negative publicity which would have resulted from prosecuting deserters.

    The military context also needs to be considered. However ridiculous it appears to modern observers, the chiefs of staff reports throughout the Emergency make clear that the Irish military seriously considered a British invasion of Ireland a possibility. From their point of view, deserters were weakening the Defence Forces at a time of national emergency and joining the forces of a possible invader.

    I have no hesitation in lauding the achievements of any Irish members of the Allied forces during the World War Two, but the deserter issue is one that needs to be very carefully considered.

    Bernard Kelly
    School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh

    http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/letters/no-pardon-for-irish-deserters-181509.html#ixzz1kZ7PpnQl
    No pardon for Irish deserters

    Thursday, January 26, 2012

    Despite the Northern Assembly adding its unanimous voice to calls for the Government to issue both a pardon and an apology to the 5,700 Irish soldiers who deserted their posts during World War II and joined the British Army, the Government must remain resolute and refuse.

    While recognising and acknowledging the significant contribution and sacrifice these men made in opposing Nazism, they nonetheless had deserted their posts at a time of national emergency in Ireland.

    The offence of desertion is a crime under military law in every army in the world, including the British Army which itself had executed in excess of 300 deserters (28 of them Irish) during the Great War, and pursued relentlessly those who had deserted during the Second World War. Those who deserted the British Army were subject to court martial and imprisonment, yet the Irish government is being asked to apply different standards to those who deserted the Irish army.

    It seems that those who deserted are now being regarded as victims. What message does this send out to those soldiers who remained loyal to the State in her hour of need? Those who joined the Irish Army did so voluntarily, it was not a conscripted force. These men swore an oath of allegiance to Ireland and betrayed that oath. The fact that they fought against Nazism did not legitimise their desertion. The actions of these men imperilled Ireland’s sovereignty and the safety of her citizens. During the war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had threatened to invade Ireland to secure the treaty ports if it was in her interests to do so, and it was the function of the Irish Army to uphold and defend the neutrality of this State, a neutrality unanimously endorsed in Dáil Éireann. With a threat of British invasion looming, for Irish soldiers to enlist in the British Army was unpardonable and unforgivable. It begs the question, if the British had re-invaded Ireland to seize her ports, would those Irish deserters who joined the British army be part of that invading force or would they have deserted instead, again?

    Regardless of the nobleness of their intentions and the worthiness of the cause in fighting Nazism, a cause which I unambiguously support, they were still wrong. Duty to one’s own country must come first. These men may have had a conscientious objection to being left out of the fight for liberty, but nonetheless their actions imperilled the safety and sovereignty of the Irish nation.

    They were duty-bound to give their primary allegiance to Ireland and no amount of subterfuge or revisionism can alter that fact.

    Tom Cooper
    Knocklyon,
    Dublin 16


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    Seems the Defence Ministers statement has found a receptive audience.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092138/Irish-minister-admits-time-Jews-fleeing-Nazis-denied-visas-1930s-morally-bankrupt-regime.html
    Irish minister admits for first time that neutrality policy during WW2 was 'morally bankrupt'
    • Justice Minister Alan Shatter says 'doors to state were kept firmly closed to Jews fleeing Hitler' while UK took thousands
    • Sorry for way 'deserter' Irish soldiers fighting for allies were treated
    • They were barred from jobs and state pensions on their return (( for 7 years ))
    • Links two issues and hints at upcoming official pardon

    By Lee Moran

    Last updated at 4:42 PM on 26th January 2012

    Ireland has admitted for the first time that its 'morally bankrupt' regime (They mean government) of the 1930s denied visas to desperate Jews trying to escape from Nazi persecution.

    Justice Minister Alan Shatter said that, following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Ireland's anti-semitic Berlin ambassador Charles Bewley ensured 'the doors to this state were kept firmly closed to German Jewish families trying to flee'.

    The admission came as he apologised for the way brave soldiers who 'deserted' (again with the irony quotes around the word deserter) the Irish Army to fight with the Allies during the Second World War were treated.

    article-2092138-0136D7B300000578-33_634x427.jpg
    Denied: Jewish families, such as the ones pictured in this 1943 photo being rounded up in the Warsaw Ghetto, were denied entry to Ireland in the 1930s


    article-2092138-0CFF168300000578-447_306x423.jpg

    article-2092138-0001A18200000C1D-515_306x423.jpg
    Slammed: Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter (left) said the administration of Eamon de Valera (right) in the 1930s was 'morally bankrupt'

    He suggested the 4,983 servicemen, who were barred from jobs and State pensions on their return and condemned to poverty and stigma for the rest of their lives (they mean barred from State employment only for a period of 7 years) , were now likely to receive an official pardon.

    And he linked the two issues to the administration of the time, led by Eamon de Valera, which he said had 'utterly lost its moral compass' in moves that still affected perceptions of the Irish now.

    Mr Shatter, who is Jewish himself and MP for Dublin South, said the current regime (they mean government) was eager to make a complete break from the past.

    He added: 'We should no longer be in denial that, in the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy.'

    article-2092138-000FCBD700000258-663_634x423.jpg
    Blocked: Mr Shatter said Ireland shut the doors to Jewish refugees once Adolf Hitler (pictured) came to power in Germany

    He added: 'At a time when neutrality should have ceased to be an issue, the Government of this State utterly lost its moral compass.'
    BRITAIN SAVED 90,000 JEWS FROM THE CLUTCHES OF HITLER
    1939: Four young members of the largest group of German-Jewish refugees arrive at Southampton on the US liner 'Manhattan'.

    A total of 90,000 Jewish refugees from across Europe were welcomed into Britain during the 1930s.

    Some 40,000 came from Austria and Nazi Germany, with the remainder coming from Italy, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

    The flow stopped in 1938, as the threat of war with Germany escalated.

    The exception was the Kindertransport (pictured above right) - an effort on the eve of conflict to transport Jewish children (their parents were not given visas) from Germany to Britain.

    Around 10,000 children were saved by the scheme.

    With the declaration of war, 74,000 German, Austrian and Italian citizens in the UK were interned as enemy aliens.

    After individual consideration by tribunal, the majority, largely made up of Jewish and other refugees, were released within six months.

    In a landmark speech before tomorrow's Holocaust Memorial Day, he said he believed the dishonourable discharge the soldiers received was wrong.

    He said: '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 (they mean deserted) this island during that time to fight for freedom and who were subsequently dishonourably discharged from the Defence Forces.

    '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.'

    He now awaits advice from Attorney General Máire Whelan about how to proceed. Of those who joined the war effort, there are estimated to be just 100 still alive.

    Families of the men have welcomed the news of the pardon, after years of campaigning.

    Paddy Reid, whose father Paddy and uncle Freddie left the Irish Army to fight with the British, said: 'I’m very happy to hear of the pardon.

    'But there is also a deep sense of regret that it has taken so long for these men to be recognised for what they did.'

    Paddy Snr joined the Allied Forces in 1941, when he was 17, and fought against the Japanese in Burma.

    article-2092138-07A4D4C5000005DC-940_634x451.jpg
    Flee: Jewish families were trying to escape Nazi Germany, where they faced eventual deportation to death camps such as Auschwitz in Poland

    Flee: Jewish families were trying to escape Nazi Germany, where they faced eventual deportation to death camps such as Auschwitz in Poland

    He died in 1988, aged 64. He joined the British forces to make money because he wanted to start a family, his son said.

    However, he also felt he should stand up against the Nazis after hearing about the bombing of Guernica in northern Spain.
    When he came back to Dublin, he found himself blacklisted and was prevented from getting work from 1946 until 1961.

    'It was very tough trying to support eight children,' said Paddy Jnr. 'The stigma was very deep and a lot of people who fought came back to real abuse.

    'My father was a brave man and a good soldier.

    Those men fought for what they believed in – they don’t make them like that any more.'

    Dr Gerald Morgan, a lecturer in English at Trinity College Dublin and a campaigner for the deserters, said that the Irish Government was 'morally right' to pardon the men.

    He added: 'This puts into context the sacrifices these individuals made.

    'They went off to fight, but paid a huge price.'

    Retired Major-General David O’Morchoe, who joined the British forces just after the war, also welcomed the decision.

    'I think the men who left the Irish Army would have felt a moral obligation to be involved but there were other considerations including financial ones,' he said.

    'Many Irish people supported the war effort not in uniform.

    'But through working in the war industries in Britain at the time.'

    The campaign to pardon the soldiers was kick-started a year ago when Robert Widders, a former soldier from Liverpool, published the book Spitting on a Soldier's Grave.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Other - Please explain.
    If you read the text of the Alan Shatter, Irish Minister of Defence statement he continues to say that in light of Irish Neutrality during WW2, Ireland has no moral authority to criticise israel (in the event of for example Israel attacking Lebannon/Gaza etc):

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP12000011

    However, there were questionable things both done and not done and we should not be in denial nor should we ignore that the conduct of our State, at that time, in the eyes of some, delimits Ireland’s moral authority and credibility when today we seek to lecture later generations of those whose families survived the Holocaust on the conduct of their affairs in Israel, without regard to the extent to which they believe themselves under existential threat.

    I was not able to find any journalists editorials/articles or politicians brave enough to criticise a Jewish minister in a statement tieing the holocaust to the Irish Deserters Pardon campaign - but here are some of the readers letters response to the Shatter statement that Irish Neutrality was Morally Bankrupt :

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0127/1224310808205.html
    A pardon for Irish soldiers

    Fri, Jan 27, 2012

    Sir, – I was surprised to read Minister for Defence Alan Shatter has indicated that a pardon will be given to those soldiers who deserted Oglaigh na hÉireann during the Emergency period 1939/1945 (Front page, January 25th). There is a fundamental difference between those Irishmen who for whatever reason chose to directly join the British forces during the second World War and those who joined our Defence Forces and subsequently deserted during those years. It would appear that Mr Shatter does not accept this difference.

    There should be no linking of the appalling horrors of the Holocaust and the proposed amnesty for those who deserted our country at a critical time.

    How is it untenable that deserters were dishonourably discharged on returning to Ireland and as a result were excluded from State employment? Would Mr Shatter consider that the deserters should have been given parity for State employment with the circa 30,000 demobilised soldiers who had served our country loyally?

    An amnesty for those who deserted will send out the wrong message to those currently serving in our Defence Forces and to those who will serve in the future. That such a proposal should be supported by the serving Minister for Defence defies credulity. – Yours, etc,

    J FALLON Comdt DSM (Retd),

    Jigginstown,

    Naas, Co Kildare.

    Sir, – While we should all be grateful for those who fought and defeated fascism during the second World War, including the circa 5,000 men who deserted the Irish Army to join the British army, the issue of a pardon is not as straightforward as your Editorial (January 26th) maintains.

    Emergency Powers Order No 362 did not “strip these soldiers of pensions”; they lost their entitlements from the date they absconded. Not only were their entitlements paid in full up to that date but the Southern authorities made administrative provision to facilitate the payment of British pensions thereafter.

    True, those deemed to have absconded (after a 180-day threshold, nearly six months), were barred from government-funded employment for a period of seven years. Apart from the stigma this was an irrelevance in practical terms since their desertion would have denied them a military discharge certificate, the necessary prerequisite for securing any employment. And in the context of the high unemployment and mass emigration of the post-war years it is a moot point as to what difference EPO 362 made in practical terms.

    One of the grievances cited by campaigners (and your Editorial) is that these men were not dealt with through the normal channels of military justice. But would the rounding up, court martialing and imprisonment of nearly 5,000 men have been preferable, especially at a time when places like the Curragh were bursting at the seams with internees? Like neutrality itself, de Valera’s “one-size-fits-all” approach was a pragmatic (and fiscally neutral) response to a difficult and complex situation.

    If there is to be a pardon we need to be clear what we are saying “sorry” for. Minister for Defence Alan Shatter’s speech on Monday at the opening of The Shoah in Europe exhibition provides a clue. “In the context of the Holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy”.

    This is a nonsense and a classic case of reading history backwards. The war was fought by the Allies not to end the Holocaust but to defeat the Axis powers militarily. And, morally bankrupt or not, neutrality was the favoured policy of nearly every state at the time. Indeed, the two states that provided the vast bulk of Allied manpower, the USSR and US, were neutral – until they were attacked.

    As a mark of respect for all those Irishmen who served at the time, whether on the beaches of Normandy or at home, this ill-conceived proposal should be dropped. – Yours, etc,

    TOMMY GRAHAM,

    Editor,

    History Ireland,

    Palmerston Place,

    Dublin 7.


    © 2012 The Irish Times


Advertisement