Alan Shatter doing his job!!!

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 02:10PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it was still the right thing to do, and i'm sure it was worth it even with the f**ed up mind games and sadistic punishment our ultra catholic "government" imposed on them.

There isn't even any proof all the deserters who were on the "black list" all joined the British Army. The list consisted of troops who were AWOL for over 180 days... How could the Irish Government even tell where they had gone? They quite literally had no way of knowing where every single last person on that list went.

As for the "right thing to do"... The right thing to do, would have been to stay loyal to the oath they swore and carried out their duty like a soldier should.

awec · 08-05-2013 02:19PM

This post has been deleted.

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 02:28PM

awec wrote: »

The idea of the Brits ever invading Ireland during WW2 is nonsense. That was never going to happen.

Not a lot more than a convenient stick for people to beat these men with.

To me, anyone who fought against the Nazi's is to be commended, no matter what banner they fought under. That was overwhelmingly the right thing to do at the time and quite frankly shame on anyone who tries to belittle what these men did.

Go visit the Military Archives in Cathal Brugha Barracks, the plans are there.

Nobody is belittling the fact they fought the Nazi's, fair play to them. The idea of every single last one of them deciding to go fight the greater evil is a bit laughable, I'm sure the far better pay, conditions etc. in the BA had nothing to do with it. Not to mention the fact that the "black list" didn't target solely those who joined the BA.

They deserted during a National Emergency, they shouldn't be pardoned for it.

Ash.J.Williams · 08-05-2013 02:39PM

If we were invaded we would have had to bend over and take it anyway.

LordSutch · 08-05-2013 02:42PM

John Mongo wrote: »

They deserted during a National Emergency, they shouldn't be pardoned for it.

That view is now outdated, and they will (finally) be pardoned & honoured by President Higgins > for fighting the Nazi's.

Wicklowrider · 08-05-2013 02:45PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Indeed, it seems that the punishment meted out was less for desertion and more for joining the British army:

How do you explain the successful careers of many Irish veterans of the British forces who returned and enlisted in the Irish defense Forces, if there was prejudice merely against joining the British?

EURATS · 08-05-2013 02:45PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If we were invaded we would have had to bend over and take it anyway.

Ireland is currently bent over and taking it!!!
There have always been a lot more bend over merchants in this country than those willing to stand up and take on the various enemies(under various guises) that seek to pillage Ireland.

Ash.J.Williams · 08-05-2013 02:52PM

EURATS wrote: »

Ireland is currently bent over and taking it!!!
There have always been a lot more bend over merchants in this country than those willing to stand up and take on the various enemies(under various guises) that seek to pillage Ireland.

exactly ..in this case the fighters went off to fight the enemy..had we been invaded the spineless political parties would have handed the country over before a shot was fired

EURATS · 08-05-2013 02:57PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

exactly ..in this case the fighters went off to fight the enemy..had we been invaded the spineless political parties would have handed the country over before a shot was fired

Their role was to defend the Irish republic. That is what they signed up to do and they deserted. This can be twisted and turned all day long. It won't change that fact.

Chips Lovell · 08-05-2013 02:59PM

Wicklowrider wrote: »

How do you explain the successful careers of many Irish veterans of the British forces who returned and enlisted in the Irish defense Forces, if there was prejudice merely against joining the British?

How do you explain that those who deserted and didn't join the British army didn't get the same treatment as those who did?

Ash.J.Williams · 08-05-2013 03:00PM

EURATS wrote: »

Their role was to defend the Irish republic. That is what they signed up to do and they deserted. This can be twisted and turned all day long. It won't change that fact.

They did more to defend us than their comrades ever did

EURATS · 08-05-2013 03:05PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They did more to defend us than their comrades ever did

Ah yes. They did it to defend "us".

The Corinthian · 08-05-2013 03:13PM

From what I can see, and please correct me if my facts are wrong, these individuals were found guilty by a military tribunal at the time of going absent without leave from the Irish Defence Forces. They were not found guilty of fighting for the British or endangering Irish neutrality or anything else, from what I can make out - just of deserting their posts.

This is an important point as the whole thing is being sold as Irish citizens seeking to enrol in the British military to fight the Nazi's; no doubt some did, but many others did not - they just went AWOL.

But even if they did fight for the British, it doesn't change the fact that they deserted. It's also not as if they were forced into the IDF, as I don't believe we had conscription at the time.

So I really don't understand the sympathy for them, TBH. They abandoned their posts, that they had signed up to freely, for various reason which may have included fighting for the British. Don't know if I'd go as far as to call them traitors, but I doubt if I'd label them with any complimentary term.

Wicklowrider · 08-05-2013 03:25PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How do you explain that those who deserted and didn't join the British army didn't get the same treatment as those who did?

I am a simple man. So how about you simply answer my question before asking me another? Then if you can provide me with evidence that any Irish Army Deserter was ever allowed another State job etc? I have been present as a witness at Courts Martial as recently as the mid '80's where deserters were dealt with and I didn't see any evidence of them being treated any differently.

Hunterbiker · 08-05-2013 03:26PM

The ones who just went AWOL didnt go on the list.

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 03:29PM

The list consisted of personnel who were AWOL for over 180 days.

Serving in the BA didn't come into it. The Government or the DF at the time couldn't possibly account for where every single last troop had been for the duration over their absence.

Chips Lovell · 08-05-2013 03:30PM

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I am a simple man. So how about you simply answer my question before asking me another? Then if you can provide me with evidence that any Irish Army Deserter was ever allowed another State job etc? I have been present as a witness at Courts Martial as recently as the mid '80's where deserters were dealt with and I didn't see any evidence of them being treated any differently.

Because your question related to people who's situation was different, i.e. those who hadn't deserted. This is a different situation. Those who deserted were treated differently depending on what they did, whether they joined the British army or not.

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 03:30PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They did more to defend us than their comrades ever did

By joining the Armed Forces of a country which had drawn up plans to invade Ireland?

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 03:32PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because your question related to people who's situation was different, i.e. those who hadn't deserted. This is a different situation. Those who deserted were treated differently depending on what they did, whether they joined the British army or not.

No, they weren't. Anyone who was AWOL for over 180 days went on the list, regardless of what they did while they were gone.

oscarBravo · 08-05-2013 03:34PM

John Mongo wrote: »

Those men swore an oath, they served this country and as soldiers, they are expected to follow and carry out all lawful orders, whether they like them or not. That is the life you choose as a soldier.

John Mongo wrote: »

As for court martials, there wasn't enough money to run court martials for thousands of troops, along with nowhere to house them once convicted, which they most certainly would have been.

So you expect the soldiers to obey their lawful orders without question, but you excuse the military authorities from their obligation to do so?

The Corinthian wrote: »

So I really don't understand the sympathy for them, TBH.

It largely stems from the sheer bloody-minded vindictiveness of a state that wasn't content to discipline soldiers according to a military code; it also felt the need to starve and/or imprison their children. If they had faced courts martial, served time and been dishonourably discharged, I doubt we would be talking about the issue today.

Chips Lovell · 08-05-2013 03:35PM

John Mongo wrote: »

No, they weren't. Anyone who was AWOL for over 180 days went on the list, regardless of what they did while they were gone.

That's incorrect. As I already pointed out earlier.

Containing each soldier’s last recorded address, date of birth, declared occupation prior to enlistment in the Defence Forces, and date of dismissal, it was circulated to all government departments and state-run bodies, to ensure that nobody who quit in such circumstances ever secured a state job. Given the climate of the time, it made most unemployable.

Soldiers who deserted but did not join the British army were treated differently: some were not even arrested, and their names were left off the list

EURATS · 08-05-2013 03:40PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It largely stems from the sheer bloody-minded vindictiveness

That really is rich!!

Also "No blacks, no dogs, NO IRISH". They were really worth fighting for!!

I'm sure the Brits are begging for our forgiveness for the way they treated our people(even thought Irish people lost their lives for them)

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 03:43PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you expect the soldiers to obey their lawful orders without question, but you excuse the military authorities from their obligation to do so?

Large scale court martials weren't viable at the time. The Government went with a blank punishment for anyone who racked up over 180 days AWOL, regardless of where they spent it. The matter was taken out of the DF's hands, apart from providing the information of the troops who hit the 180 mark.

As for the going after families, I can't imagine you'd find many people who would defend that. It was an utter disgrace.

However, the deserter's should never have been pardoned. They were guilty of desertion, simple as.

The Corinthian · 08-05-2013 03:46PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It largely stems from the sheer bloody-minded vindictiveness of a state that wasn't content to discipline soldiers according to a military code; it also felt the need to starve and/or imprison their children. If they had faced courts martial, served time and been dishonourably discharged, I doubt we would be talking about the issue today.

Fair enough, I agree with you on that point.

I just find how they're being portrayed - as some sort of idealistic group who are only being punished for choosing to fight for the British against the Nazis - to be quite dishonest - because they weren't.

Still, better Shatter wastes his time on this, rather than continue on his crusade to make possession of a penis illegal in Ireland.

Nodin · 08-05-2013 03:53PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

From what I can see, and please correct me if my facts are wrong, these individuals were found guilty by a military tribunal at the time of going absent without leave from the Irish Defence Forces. They were not found guilty of fighting for the British or endangering Irish neutrality or anything else, from what I can make out - just of deserting their posts.
...............

No, they were court martialled in absentia and en masse.

John Mongo · 08-05-2013 03:59PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's incorrect. As I already pointed out earlier.

Sorry, I can't read the full article as I'm not a subscriber to the Irish Times. As an aside, type in "Wrong to assume all Irish deserters were Allied veterans" to the search engine on the Irish Times site and you'll see the jist of the issue I have with the pardon.

What started with an attempt to have people who deserted the DF to join the BA, has turned into an attempt to pardon everyone on the Blacklist for desertion. That list of 4,983 troops did not consist solely of troops who deserted and joined the BA. Such a list was not possible to create. The DF had no way of knowing where they went once they went absent.

I take issue with people trying to make out that desertion during the Emergency wasn't such a bad thing, or a serious crime. It was wrong, it was a crime they were guilty of and they shouldn't have been pardoned for it.

SeanW · 08-05-2013 04:05PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Read the rest of my post.

I did. You claimed he said stuff about the Middle East and accused him of pushing us closer to NATO e.g. with Mali. Not very clear.[/QUOTE]

Hindsight's a great thing isn't it. Bandwaggonry 60 odd years later. Hope we're on the right side in Mali. And if we're not, it'll be another 60 years before any deserter get's his pardon too...

We are: Islamic extremism is this generations equivalent of Nazism. Only this time the enemy is as much internal as external, and we have millions of Neville Chaimberlains.

John Mongo wrote: »

This apology and pardon should never have happened.

Firstly, there is no evidence at all to prove that all of the deserter's left to join the BA.

No, but that's the working assumption, many did.

Also, it's not simply a case of men taking up an honourable cause and going to fight the Germans for the greater good, pay and conditions were far better in the BA than the DF at the time.

So, the pay and conditions were better in the British Army but the soldier had to fight in the front lines of a war vis-a-vis directing traffic and herding sheep at home ... yeah selfish bastards risking life and limb at the frontline of a World War.

People can attempt to dress it up anyway they want, those men are deserters. Simple as.

No disputing that: they were deserters. But deserters that had a very good reason for doing what they did.

John Mongo wrote: »

A Nazi soldier would have been a conscript. He wouldn't have had a choice in joining in the first place.

Not all: anyone in the German army before conscription started, and some no doubt joined the Nazi army voluntarily.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

...Then the only army with a stated objective of defending Ireland was down thousands of soldiers.

Ireland's strength was going to be guerilla warfare, and it couldn't afford to bleed military losses.

As I said before, if it had got to that, we'd have been screwed anyway.

Jawgap · 08-05-2013 04:07PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Wonder had we been invaded (as was planned) and we lost loads of civilians due to the lack of soldiers, would we be as forgiving? They abandoned us in a war, I see them as deserters personally.

We were never, ever at risk of being invaded - we had the RN and RAF protecting us.

EURATS wrote: »

100%. If they absconded from the British or US army they would also have been treated as such.

jhegarty wrote: »

Isn't a quick firing squad the normal punishment for going AWOL at a time of war ?

There is a world of difference between going AWL, abandoning a post and deserting in the face of the enemy.

A lot of these guys went AWL - the correct punishment would have been court martial or administrative punishment resulting in a dishonourable discharge - instead some were charged with cowardice and desertion and subject to discharge with ignominy.

It wasn't so much that there shouldn't have been consequences but the State pursued them with a ruthless vindiction that was far out of proportion to any 'crime' they might have committed.

The pardon and apology is well and long overdue.

The Corinthian · 08-05-2013 04:16PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, they were court martialled in absentia and en masse.

And?

Wicklowrider · 08-05-2013 04:22PM

A lot of people posting in support of the apology have no military experience.
No understanding of duty, loyalty, allegiance or honour (I am no longer surprised that a FG minister fails to understand these concepts)

I am surprised that some posters, who are experienced soldiers , condone desertion.

You take your oath and are bound by that oath. Why even have an oath if it means jack?

How would you all feel if in the future there is a S.F government and they excuse any deserters who served in P.I.R.A ? Or is it just F.G who get to pick and choose what level of disloyalty is excusable?

Alan Shatter doing his job!!!

Comments