Spitting on a Soldier's Grave
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Spitting on a Soldier's Grave
Just listened to a piece on this on R4 this morning. The author is also the campaigner for those involved to receive a full pardon from the Irish government, which seems to be on the point of success.
Not only were those involved court martialled and convicted in their absence without trial, the law passed banned them from employment in the country for 7 years, driving many into exile, but it made their children liable for arrest and detention where the were used as unpaid labour and suffered sexual abuse.
Spitting on a Soldier's Grave
R4 interview in August: Today Programme
Upcoming programme on R4 "Face the Facts" on 4th January at 1230PM: The Disowned Army
Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2)
A petition was launched outside Dail Eireann (Parliament), on 30 June 2011, calling for pardons for Irish Defence Force personnel who allegedly deserted the Irish Army during World War Two. These men joined the (British) Navy and RAF, and the British Army, including Special Forces, to fight fascism. But after the war they were subjected to a kangaroo court-martial, en masse, and in absentia, via Emergency Power Order (362) introduced by the Irish government. Many of these brave men, who were unjustly convicted, are at rest in various battlefields across the world. They died fighting the Nazis and fascists, from North Africa to Italy, Kohima to Normandy, and through France, Holland, Belgium and the liberation of the concentration camps in Germany. The survivors, who returned to Ireland, were treated with utter contempt by the DeValera government. And, unbelievable as it sounds, even the dead were publicly vilified and banned from employment, along with the survivors.
My good friend, and fellow ex British serviceman, Robert Widders wrote an excellent book about this, Spitting on a Soldiers Grave. It reveals a story that has been kept secret for over half a century. And it is one of the most shocking incidences of injustice targeted at service personnel, post World War Two, that I have come across. Hence the recent launch of the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2). Even the soldiers 'Shot at Dawn' during WW1 had a chance to defend themselves, albeit summary. Yet the Irish WW2 veterans were condemned without any trial. And, in some cases, the Irish government even imprisoned (and abused) their children.
We are calling upon organisations and individuals to support the objectives of the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2). We believe that we owe the few elderly survivors a debt of honour. You are invited to contact Robert Widders in the UK (author of Spitting on a Soldiers Grave) and to view our website online for further information, and then make an informed decision. Robert can be contacted at his email address [email protected]
The Irish government are now considering the issues. Hopefully they have the political capacity, wisdom and compassion, to revoke this legislation or use some other mechanism to re-instate and pardon these men who fought Nazi terrorism on our behalf. We trust you agree - will you help us by publicising the issues
Peter Mulvany Coordinator Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2) Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign WW2
Note: The 4983 alleged deserters in the list are mainly from Ireland. But hundreds have addresses in Northern Ireland and mainland UK.
email [email protected]
Telephone = 00353872769707
website = Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign WW2
Ulster Star
17/07/2011
Not only were those involved court martialled and convicted in their absence without trial, the law passed banned them from employment in the country for 7 years, driving many into exile, but it made their children liable for arrest and detention where the were used as unpaid labour and suffered sexual abuse.
Spitting on a Soldier's Grave
R4 interview in August: Today Programme
Upcoming programme on R4 "Face the Facts" on 4th January at 1230PM: The Disowned Army
Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2)
A petition was launched outside Dail Eireann (Parliament), on 30 June 2011, calling for pardons for Irish Defence Force personnel who allegedly deserted the Irish Army during World War Two. These men joined the (British) Navy and RAF, and the British Army, including Special Forces, to fight fascism. But after the war they were subjected to a kangaroo court-martial, en masse, and in absentia, via Emergency Power Order (362) introduced by the Irish government. Many of these brave men, who were unjustly convicted, are at rest in various battlefields across the world. They died fighting the Nazis and fascists, from North Africa to Italy, Kohima to Normandy, and through France, Holland, Belgium and the liberation of the concentration camps in Germany. The survivors, who returned to Ireland, were treated with utter contempt by the DeValera government. And, unbelievable as it sounds, even the dead were publicly vilified and banned from employment, along with the survivors.
My good friend, and fellow ex British serviceman, Robert Widders wrote an excellent book about this, Spitting on a Soldiers Grave. It reveals a story that has been kept secret for over half a century. And it is one of the most shocking incidences of injustice targeted at service personnel, post World War Two, that I have come across. Hence the recent launch of the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2). Even the soldiers 'Shot at Dawn' during WW1 had a chance to defend themselves, albeit summary. Yet the Irish WW2 veterans were condemned without any trial. And, in some cases, the Irish government even imprisoned (and abused) their children.
We are calling upon organisations and individuals to support the objectives of the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2). We believe that we owe the few elderly survivors a debt of honour. You are invited to contact Robert Widders in the UK (author of Spitting on a Soldiers Grave) and to view our website online for further information, and then make an informed decision. Robert can be contacted at his email address [email protected]
The Irish government are now considering the issues. Hopefully they have the political capacity, wisdom and compassion, to revoke this legislation or use some other mechanism to re-instate and pardon these men who fought Nazi terrorism on our behalf. We trust you agree - will you help us by publicising the issues
Peter Mulvany Coordinator Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign (WW2) Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign WW2
Note: The 4983 alleged deserters in the list are mainly from Ireland. But hundreds have addresses in Northern Ireland and mainland UK.
email [email protected]
Telephone = 00353872769707
website = Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign WW2
Ulster Star
17/07/2011
Last edited by ORAC; 28th Dec 2011 at 12:35.
A very creditable campaign. This was a shameful period in Ireland's history. The actions of de Valera's state were in contrast to the courage of a large number of its citizens, whose reward for their courage in joining the fight against fascism was the disgraceful treatment described above.
There has been a shift in Irish attitudes in recent years, with more attention being given to war memorials and remembrance in general. As someone of Irish ancestry (my grandparents moved from Mullingar to Scotland in the early 20th century), I would like to see this stain removed from Ireland's record.
There has been a shift in Irish attitudes in recent years, with more attention being given to war memorials and remembrance in general. As someone of Irish ancestry (my grandparents moved from Mullingar to Scotland in the early 20th century), I would like to see this stain removed from Ireland's record.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can this have gone so unremarked by the mainstream media for this long?
How a country treats those it considers to be 'traitors' of course is largely their choice, but to use this as yet another thinly disguised opportunity to abuse yet more children (those of these people) is just outrageous. What a pitiful 'culture' it is in that country.
How a country treats those it considers to be 'traitors' of course is largely their choice, but to use this as yet another thinly disguised opportunity to abuse yet more children (those of these people) is just outrageous. What a pitiful 'culture' it is in that country.
What you say is true, BOAC, but I would caution against stone throwing from inside our particular greenhouse. Bomber Command is only now about to get the National Memorial that its contribution to victory, at such dreadful cost over the very same Fascists, called for in the 1940's never mind the 2010's. And that mainly thanks to a dying musician rather than a grateful national leadership! BC's commander was slighted, both in life and death, and his aircrew got just the same campaign medal after D-Day as those in the rear Army echelons. On the whole that anti Bomber Campaign bias was top down, rather than the reverse. I would suggest that, in defence of the Irish population, much the same applied in their case.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug - my comment was about child abuse? I'm not aware of any BC crew's children being arrested and placed in 'prison camps'?
How a country treats those it considers to be 'traitors' of course is largely their choice
Sorry, point taken BOAC, missed that. I agree that child abuse is indeed to be condemned wherever it occurs. If it is permitted or facilitated by institutional means it is even more contemptible, if that be possible.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
A little more digging........
Days In The Life
Mr Walsh.......discovered an extraordinary secret buried in the public record office in Kew, West London, which dates from the time of the Dublin legislation allowing children to be committed to industrial schools. The law was introduced in 1941 when Britain was nearly on its knees after Germany had overrun mainland Europe and Ireland was a neutral country.
At that time some 50,000 Irish men and women had crossed the border and joined British forces fighting the Germans. In particular some 4,000 servicemen had deserted the Irish Free Army to fight on the British side. These "deserters" were regarded with particular contempt by Eamon de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach, whose administration was to pass a law in 1945 to prevent any of them getting jobs with the state for seven years. Many of the children of these "deserter" soldiers were put into care on the grounds that they had been abandoned by their fathers. The Kew documents contain correspondence between officials in Dublin and the British War Office and the Admiralty. The Irish government demanded that the family allowance that would have been paid to the Irish servicemen if their children had not been committed should be handed over to the Industrial Schools. Britain initially refused but the Irish were persistent, and Frederick Boland, a senior official who worked closely with De Valera, wrote increasingly trenchant letters.
In one he couples the demand with the comment: "There is the further incidental consideration that in not a few of these cases the lack of parental control to which the committal of the children is due is attributable to the absence of the fathers with your forces." By the end of the war Britain had capitulated and paid up. It then became clear, according to Mr Walsh, that the Irish had the servicemen's numbers and knew who was serving with the British. Mr Walsh said: "It suggests that if Dublin could supply the roll numbers of the troops involved - rather than the other way round - there was surveillance of the families at the time. The fact that the public record office is keeping secret some other files for up to 100 years on the connection between neutral Ireland and the Nazis suggests that more will come out."..........
Not Much Time To Right This Grave Injustice
...................The government of the day was condemned in the Dáil by the opposition party, Fine Gael. They argued, with some justification, that the government’s legislation was illegal. It had been framed as an Emergency Powers Act after the end of the Emergency. Fine Gael deputy leader, Dr. Thomas F. O’Higgins, described the government’s action as “brutal, unchristian and inhuman, stimulated by malice, seething with hatred, and oozing with venom.”
But the government’s actions were even more mean-spirited and vindictive than the opposition realized. Hundreds of these men had died long before they were publicly vilified and banned from employment. Men like Joseph Mullally would never cheat the dole queue and get a job with the council. He had already died on D-Day, June 6, 1944, fighting the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy – a year before his Kangaroo court martial.
As well as punishing the soldiers, the government also punished their children. In many cases the children were sentenced in courts of law, criminalized, and imprisoned. Now in fairness, even though the government’s response to those deserters was vindictive and unconstitutional, we can at least understand that they had to do something.
But what is beyond all understanding is the state-sponsored abuse of soldiers’ children. It is a grim irony that while Irish soldiers were amongst the men liberating Belsen concentration camp, the Irish government was running its own camps, set up to provide care for children whom the Irish state arrested and then handed over to the religious orders.
The regime in these camps – euphemistically called industrial schools – was characterized by physical and sexual abuse. Malnutrition and denial of medical treatment was the norm.
And in some of the more remote country locations children were even hired out to farmers to work in the fields as virtual slaves. Sometimes children’s names were replaced with numbers. I have a document in front of me now, the neatly written column of names, starting with Sinead D ***, better known as 652 – her camp number. But three names on that list have the designation “SS.” And “SS”, in the twisted lingua of the industrial schools, indicates the child of a soldier, one to be given “special treatment.”
Mary G*** was one of those children who received the benefits of special treatment. She was incarcerated in Goldenbridge (Dublin) at the age of two, as her admission papers state, “with her charge and sentence of detention,” until the age of 14. Mary was kept in Goldenbridge (a convict refuge originally built in 1855) for over a decade and only allowed out for one day every year. Her father, a soldier, wrote increasingly desperate letters to his young child throughout the Second World War, letters the Sisters of Mercy withheld from her for over half a century.
It’s hard to imagine the feelings of a little girl, frightened, alone, living a life of constant fear of the beatings that were a routine part of her day. She told me she wondered why her daddy never wrote to her. And what anguish must her father have felt. How does a soldier feel facing combat and possible death, waiting for a letter from his little girl – a letter that never comes.
When this was brought into the public domain in my book, “Spitting On A Soldier’s Grave,” Irish people responded with a mixture of surprise and anger. “That’s dreadful, I never heard of that before” was a typical comment. And there were many calls for restorative justice for the so-called deserters.............
Days In The Life
Mr Walsh.......discovered an extraordinary secret buried in the public record office in Kew, West London, which dates from the time of the Dublin legislation allowing children to be committed to industrial schools. The law was introduced in 1941 when Britain was nearly on its knees after Germany had overrun mainland Europe and Ireland was a neutral country.
At that time some 50,000 Irish men and women had crossed the border and joined British forces fighting the Germans. In particular some 4,000 servicemen had deserted the Irish Free Army to fight on the British side. These "deserters" were regarded with particular contempt by Eamon de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach, whose administration was to pass a law in 1945 to prevent any of them getting jobs with the state for seven years. Many of the children of these "deserter" soldiers were put into care on the grounds that they had been abandoned by their fathers. The Kew documents contain correspondence between officials in Dublin and the British War Office and the Admiralty. The Irish government demanded that the family allowance that would have been paid to the Irish servicemen if their children had not been committed should be handed over to the Industrial Schools. Britain initially refused but the Irish were persistent, and Frederick Boland, a senior official who worked closely with De Valera, wrote increasingly trenchant letters.
In one he couples the demand with the comment: "There is the further incidental consideration that in not a few of these cases the lack of parental control to which the committal of the children is due is attributable to the absence of the fathers with your forces." By the end of the war Britain had capitulated and paid up. It then became clear, according to Mr Walsh, that the Irish had the servicemen's numbers and knew who was serving with the British. Mr Walsh said: "It suggests that if Dublin could supply the roll numbers of the troops involved - rather than the other way round - there was surveillance of the families at the time. The fact that the public record office is keeping secret some other files for up to 100 years on the connection between neutral Ireland and the Nazis suggests that more will come out."..........
Not Much Time To Right This Grave Injustice
...................The government of the day was condemned in the Dáil by the opposition party, Fine Gael. They argued, with some justification, that the government’s legislation was illegal. It had been framed as an Emergency Powers Act after the end of the Emergency. Fine Gael deputy leader, Dr. Thomas F. O’Higgins, described the government’s action as “brutal, unchristian and inhuman, stimulated by malice, seething with hatred, and oozing with venom.”
But the government’s actions were even more mean-spirited and vindictive than the opposition realized. Hundreds of these men had died long before they were publicly vilified and banned from employment. Men like Joseph Mullally would never cheat the dole queue and get a job with the council. He had already died on D-Day, June 6, 1944, fighting the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy – a year before his Kangaroo court martial.
As well as punishing the soldiers, the government also punished their children. In many cases the children were sentenced in courts of law, criminalized, and imprisoned. Now in fairness, even though the government’s response to those deserters was vindictive and unconstitutional, we can at least understand that they had to do something.
But what is beyond all understanding is the state-sponsored abuse of soldiers’ children. It is a grim irony that while Irish soldiers were amongst the men liberating Belsen concentration camp, the Irish government was running its own camps, set up to provide care for children whom the Irish state arrested and then handed over to the religious orders.
The regime in these camps – euphemistically called industrial schools – was characterized by physical and sexual abuse. Malnutrition and denial of medical treatment was the norm.
And in some of the more remote country locations children were even hired out to farmers to work in the fields as virtual slaves. Sometimes children’s names were replaced with numbers. I have a document in front of me now, the neatly written column of names, starting with Sinead D ***, better known as 652 – her camp number. But three names on that list have the designation “SS.” And “SS”, in the twisted lingua of the industrial schools, indicates the child of a soldier, one to be given “special treatment.”
Mary G*** was one of those children who received the benefits of special treatment. She was incarcerated in Goldenbridge (Dublin) at the age of two, as her admission papers state, “with her charge and sentence of detention,” until the age of 14. Mary was kept in Goldenbridge (a convict refuge originally built in 1855) for over a decade and only allowed out for one day every year. Her father, a soldier, wrote increasingly desperate letters to his young child throughout the Second World War, letters the Sisters of Mercy withheld from her for over half a century.
It’s hard to imagine the feelings of a little girl, frightened, alone, living a life of constant fear of the beatings that were a routine part of her day. She told me she wondered why her daddy never wrote to her. And what anguish must her father have felt. How does a soldier feel facing combat and possible death, waiting for a letter from his little girl – a letter that never comes.
When this was brought into the public domain in my book, “Spitting On A Soldier’s Grave,” Irish people responded with a mixture of surprise and anger. “That’s dreadful, I never heard of that before” was a typical comment. And there were many calls for restorative justice for the so-called deserters.............
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?Thank you? Orac - I had not seen the full item, but had, of course, suspected that the Catholic church would be involved yet again. 'Sisters of Mercy' indeed. What a farce. 'Society of perverts' would be more apt.
With regard to the reporting on BBC News of this piece, just to correct a couple of factual errors.
1) the BBC News article stated that the government of Ireland chose to be neutral. That is inaccurate. In fact it is the Constitution of Ireland that imposed neutrality on the State.
2) The BBC News article repeatedly referred to "the Republic of Ireland". No such country exists, nor has ever existed. The term is a description of Ireland (the State, not the island) and didn't come into existence until The Republic of Ireland Act (1948).
While, personally, I have every sympathy for those who stepped forward and fought fascism (whether Hitler, Franco or anyone else), and do believe that their action and sacrifice should be acknowledged, in this case the fact of the matter is that members of the armed forces of one state deserted their post and went to fight for another sovereign. If members of the British Army had deserted their posts in Afghanistan, the UK or elsewhere to take up the fight against Gadaffi, how should they have been treated?
JAS
1) the BBC News article stated that the government of Ireland chose to be neutral. That is inaccurate. In fact it is the Constitution of Ireland that imposed neutrality on the State.
2) The BBC News article repeatedly referred to "the Republic of Ireland". No such country exists, nor has ever existed. The term is a description of Ireland (the State, not the island) and didn't come into existence until The Republic of Ireland Act (1948).
While, personally, I have every sympathy for those who stepped forward and fought fascism (whether Hitler, Franco or anyone else), and do believe that their action and sacrifice should be acknowledged, in this case the fact of the matter is that members of the armed forces of one state deserted their post and went to fight for another sovereign. If members of the British Army had deserted their posts in Afghanistan, the UK or elsewhere to take up the fight against Gadaffi, how should they have been treated?
JAS
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
If members of the British Army had deserted their posts in Afghanistan, the UK or elsewhere to take up the fight against Gadaffi, how should they have been treated?
Fine Gael deputy leader, Dr. Thomas F. O’Higgins, described the government’s action as “brutal, unchristian and inhuman, stimulated by malice, seething with hatred, and oozing with venom.”
I presume you disagree?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JaS
If members of the British Army had deserted their posts in Afghanistan, the UK or elsewhere to take up the fight against Gadaffi, how should they have been treated?
in this case the fact of the matter is that members of the armed forces of one state deserted their post and went to fight for another sovereign. If members of the British Army had deserted their posts in Afghanistan, the UK or elsewhere to take up the fight against Gadaffi, how should they have been treated?
To analyse your example, compare how long Elizabeth II and her predecessors have been sovereign in the UK (centuries) to the age of the new Free State in 1939. Let's say 1922 to 1939 = a mere 17 years!!!
Maybe professional Irish soldiers who had done more than 17 years in 1939 had more loyalty to a King to which they had sworn an oath than a so called Free State and therefore had more cause to desert than most
Lets look on it dispassionately while others rant.....
Those who deserted a countrys army are Court martialled irrespective of who they fought for............. don't remember Allied govts having a sympathethic view of any who deserted their side in WW2 and fought on German side.
I notice the OP uses the word "Alledged" in looking at desertion, its pretty black and white really, you either did or didn't.
Happy to be proven wrong but we didn't treat deserters in WW2 well, seem to remember the Cossacks, Soldiers and Civilians getting handed over for execution by the USSR.
The banishment from public employment for a period of 7 years is not a surprise given the taxpayers don't wish to fund people who have fought for another state in a war. Over here UK public bodies acted similarly against Conscientious Objectors who were dismissed by councils and private employers so there is consistency of treatment as much as we don't wish to believe it.
The locking up of Children in what was called "Industrial schools" is and will always be an abonimation but given many children were abandoned in a poor country which had bugger all there was not a lot of options. We sent them to the colonies in the 40's / 50's and 60's, stealing them from their parents but seems we started this in sending "Vagrant children" to the Virginia colonies in 1618 and continued this practice up to 1967 in sending to Australia. What is our excuse ?
As a somewhat student of Irish history I would be wary of attempting to see this through 21st Century eyes......
Given Ireland had Independence for 17 years when WW2 started and an economic war in 1930's had impoverished an already poor country then it is not surprising the stance taken by the Govt of the day. UK didn't exactly part on good terms so why would be expect anything to have changed in 1939 ?
Reality is they were neutral in our favour and supplied us with lots of food that we needed. The overwhelming majority of the people in Irish elections voted for parties that supported that neutrality. So can't on one hand say we fighting for democracy and then abuse those who decide democratically what is best for them.
Irish Free State made its position clear at start of the war and maintained it even when it could have gained in joining in at last minute like quite a few countries. They kept that neutral position and somehow think the hiding of links between our Govt and Irish Free state are more to do with how much they assisted us after all Irish state has nothing to lose post war in what UK issues from its records has it ?
DeValera gave his condolences to German legation on death of leader of Germany but he also did exactly the same at the US embassy on the death of President Roosevelt ensuring he acted impartially irrespective of the abuse he knew he would receive.
Those who deserted a countrys army are Court martialled irrespective of who they fought for............. don't remember Allied govts having a sympathethic view of any who deserted their side in WW2 and fought on German side.
I notice the OP uses the word "Alledged" in looking at desertion, its pretty black and white really, you either did or didn't.
Happy to be proven wrong but we didn't treat deserters in WW2 well, seem to remember the Cossacks, Soldiers and Civilians getting handed over for execution by the USSR.
The banishment from public employment for a period of 7 years is not a surprise given the taxpayers don't wish to fund people who have fought for another state in a war. Over here UK public bodies acted similarly against Conscientious Objectors who were dismissed by councils and private employers so there is consistency of treatment as much as we don't wish to believe it.
The locking up of Children in what was called "Industrial schools" is and will always be an abonimation but given many children were abandoned in a poor country which had bugger all there was not a lot of options. We sent them to the colonies in the 40's / 50's and 60's, stealing them from their parents but seems we started this in sending "Vagrant children" to the Virginia colonies in 1618 and continued this practice up to 1967 in sending to Australia. What is our excuse ?
As a somewhat student of Irish history I would be wary of attempting to see this through 21st Century eyes......
Given Ireland had Independence for 17 years when WW2 started and an economic war in 1930's had impoverished an already poor country then it is not surprising the stance taken by the Govt of the day. UK didn't exactly part on good terms so why would be expect anything to have changed in 1939 ?
Reality is they were neutral in our favour and supplied us with lots of food that we needed. The overwhelming majority of the people in Irish elections voted for parties that supported that neutrality. So can't on one hand say we fighting for democracy and then abuse those who decide democratically what is best for them.
Irish Free State made its position clear at start of the war and maintained it even when it could have gained in joining in at last minute like quite a few countries. They kept that neutral position and somehow think the hiding of links between our Govt and Irish Free state are more to do with how much they assisted us after all Irish state has nothing to lose post war in what UK issues from its records has it ?
DeValera gave his condolences to German legation on death of leader of Germany but he also did exactly the same at the US embassy on the death of President Roosevelt ensuring he acted impartially irrespective of the abuse he knew he would receive.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts here are we are lighting the touch paper of a very sensitive issue and it will not be long before we start reading about the conduct of 'x' country compared to that of 'y'.
I have dozens of objections to numerous acts deeds or otherwise committed by one country against another and Great Britain is possibly not the perfect country we all might like to believe, but voicing our objections on a public forum is sadly an act that may well have a very predictable ending.
Can we all not leave the past where it belongs and spare a private thought for those we a judge to be a victim? please
A wet John from sunny Torquay
I have dozens of objections to numerous acts deeds or otherwise committed by one country against another and Great Britain is possibly not the perfect country we all might like to believe, but voicing our objections on a public forum is sadly an act that may well have a very predictable ending.
Can we all not leave the past where it belongs and spare a private thought for those we a judge to be a victim? please
A wet John from sunny Torquay
@ORAC
I fully agree with the sentiment you posted. I'm no supporter of the position taken by De Valera on many issues. The actions of the State in this and many other issues in its short existence have been, IMHO at best, delinquent, and the hand of De Valera and indeed, latterly that of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid steered the history of this country in some very dark and sinister ways.
My post wasn’t an attempt to support the position, merely to add some perspective. Keep in mind that by 1939, Irish men had fought and died in the first world war as members of the British Army, as Ireland was still part of the UK at the time, seen their capital levelled by that same army in response to a relatively small and poorly organised armed insurrection (plenty of historical photographs of the destruction laid on the centre of Dublin following shelling to end the 1916 Easter Rising) and its leaders executed, fought a war of independence on the island which was followed by a civil war that divided families, all before the end of the 1920’s. By the late 1930’s there was little support to enter what at the time was seen as someone-elses war. Add to that a fear that during WWII Britain would invade to secure use of the ports on the Atlantic coast and you can perhaps see why there was little support at the time for those who ‘took the kings shilling’.
By today’s standards the actions of the State were incredibly harsh, but there was little outcry at the time.
@TR
I don’t think the duration of a State’s history is a determinant of the fidelity its citizens owe to it. The British dominion that was the Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937, being replaced with the current sovereign State, namely, Ireland. The UK as it is currently constituted has existed since 1922.
Certainly there may have been members of the Irish armed forces in 1939 who were formerly members of the British regiments in Ireland and elsewhere. Many will have fought on one side or the other in the Irish Civil War post the creation of Free State ("so called" or not). Either way, I doubt many would have questioned the loyalty of any of them to what they saw as their country.
Overall, the actions have to been seen in their historical context. Personally, I do believe that the punishment was far in excess of what was warranted by the 'crime'.
JAS
I fully agree with the sentiment you posted. I'm no supporter of the position taken by De Valera on many issues. The actions of the State in this and many other issues in its short existence have been, IMHO at best, delinquent, and the hand of De Valera and indeed, latterly that of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid steered the history of this country in some very dark and sinister ways.
My post wasn’t an attempt to support the position, merely to add some perspective. Keep in mind that by 1939, Irish men had fought and died in the first world war as members of the British Army, as Ireland was still part of the UK at the time, seen their capital levelled by that same army in response to a relatively small and poorly organised armed insurrection (plenty of historical photographs of the destruction laid on the centre of Dublin following shelling to end the 1916 Easter Rising) and its leaders executed, fought a war of independence on the island which was followed by a civil war that divided families, all before the end of the 1920’s. By the late 1930’s there was little support to enter what at the time was seen as someone-elses war. Add to that a fear that during WWII Britain would invade to secure use of the ports on the Atlantic coast and you can perhaps see why there was little support at the time for those who ‘took the kings shilling’.
By today’s standards the actions of the State were incredibly harsh, but there was little outcry at the time.
@TR
I don’t think the duration of a State’s history is a determinant of the fidelity its citizens owe to it. The British dominion that was the Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937, being replaced with the current sovereign State, namely, Ireland. The UK as it is currently constituted has existed since 1922.
Certainly there may have been members of the Irish armed forces in 1939 who were formerly members of the British regiments in Ireland and elsewhere. Many will have fought on one side or the other in the Irish Civil War post the creation of Free State ("so called" or not). Either way, I doubt many would have questioned the loyalty of any of them to what they saw as their country.
Overall, the actions have to been seen in their historical context. Personally, I do believe that the punishment was far in excess of what was warranted by the 'crime'.
JAS
I don’t think the duration of a State’s history is a determinant of the fidelity its citizens owe to it.
2) The BBC News article repeatedly referred to "the Republic of Ireland". No such country exists, nor has ever existed.
Whatever the legal definition of a deserter, I think in most people's minds the term means someone who is a member of an armed force who flees from that force, either to ensure their own safety, or perhaps to fight for the enemy for idealogical reasons.
To describe those who absented themselves from the armed forces of a neutral Ireland in order to go and actually fight against the Axis as deserters is tantamount to sophistry. They were neither displaying cowardice nor were they fighting for their country's enemies, indeed in de Valera's neutral state, the country in theory had no enemies.
That so many of his countrymen saw things differently is to their credit and to his eternal shame.
To describe those who absented themselves from the armed forces of a neutral Ireland in order to go and actually fight against the Axis as deserters is tantamount to sophistry. They were neither displaying cowardice nor were they fighting for their country's enemies, indeed in de Valera's neutral state, the country in theory had no enemies.
That so many of his countrymen saw things differently is to their credit and to his eternal shame.
2) The BBC News article repeatedly referred to "the Republic of Ireland". No such country exists, nor has ever existed. In the UK the Ireland Act 1949 provided that "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of the state under UK law. So there.
From the Irish Constitution
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
JAS
The name 'Republic of Ireland' only applies in English law. To recognise it as 'Ireland' would infer that Northern Ireland is part of it and not part of the United Kingdom. Other countries can call it what they like.