Spitting on a Soldier's Grave
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.
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.
Irish Govt executed IRA members and locked many members up to make sure they couldn't become a Nazi support network.................so much for Irish Govt being pro German.
Where as Allied forces were treated a hell of a lot more leniently and as the war drew on many got released pretty soon after landing where as Germans were locked up for the duration.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where as Allied forces were treated a hell of a lot more leniently and as the war drew on many got released pretty soon after landing where as Germans were locked up for the duration
The brutal way in which the De Valera administration dealt with soldiers and their families, who deserted the Irish Army to fight for the British doesn't blend easily, for me, with the notion that Irish neutrality was biased to wards the British.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 80
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attempting to look at historical events through modern eyes is an exercise in futility. One of our broadcasters - the ABC in conjunction with the BBC, did a marvellous documentary called "The Leaving of Liverpool" about the thousands of English children who were "Transported" to Australia, Canada and South Africa post WWII. Many of whom had been evacuated and then never reclaimed as their whereabouts had been lost. So they became Orphans, taken in by the likes of Dr Barnadoes who then shipped them out to religious penal colonies. It happened.
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.
All WWII campaign medals were designated by region of conflict, not unit. There was, however, the one small exception, this was the clasp "Battle of Britain" which is worn on the ribbon of the 1939-1945 Star. Perhaps this is what everyone has been unhappy about, maybe a clasp "Bomber Command" should have been issued to be worn on the same ribbon. I also uncovered some documentation and minutes, some years ago, at the National Archives, apparently Lord Sholto Douglas and Sir Arthur Harris were both engaged in trying to get H.M. Government to recognise R.A.F. groundcrew of the operational commands with a campaign star and also therefore by default, the 39-45 star. H.M. Forces personnel, regardless of their endeavours, who did not serve outside Great Britain or British dominions received no campaign stars at all.
FB
...and his aircrew got just the same campaign medal after D-Day as those in the rear Army echelons.
On the question of a Bomber Command Campaign medal, was not the Aircrew Europe Star intended to cover all air operations flown from UK Bases?
Trying to get back on thread, actually the Irish issued a rather interesting series of medals for service during "the emergency" as the unpleasantless elsewhere was called. One was for the Irish Mercantile Marine, which in spite of its neutrality still lost many ships sunk at German hands with attendant loss of life. Because of the reduced danger of their being torpedoed, Irish merchant vessels often stopped to pick up survivors of sunken ships and saved hundreds of allied lives in the process. There is a memorial plaque to Irish merchant seamen lost at sea 1939-45 in the National Arboretum in Staffordshire.
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 1st Jan 2012 at 16:39.
Thanks for the confirmation, and for the admonishment, ttn. ;-) In no way do I wish to belittle the bravery or duty done in the Army's Land Campaign as it fought its way from Normandy to Germany. That is the point, though. It was a separate campaign to the Bombing Campaign, which should have had its own Campaign Star from the start. The fact that it did not, that all air operations over Europe qualified for the Aircrew Europe Star before D-Day, meant that afterwards it shared the France Germany Star with those in direct tactical support of the Army's advance in their land campaign. Harris was wrong to want a "Bomber Command Medal", that I'll concede, but his aircrew should have received a "Bombing Campaign Star" (or some such) for the 1939-45 Strategic Bombing Campaign that cost them so dear.
To try to desperately haul myself back on board the OP's thread, I have never understood the moral superiority often expressed by those who espoused neutrality in WW2. Here we had the choice of either fighting dictatorships that invaded and brutally repressed their neighbours, and then threatening their neighbours in turn, or of simply sitting on the sidelines and seeing how things turned out. Quite well, it would seem, for most whose neutrality survived the war. Certainly Sweden and Switzerland never looked back, though Portugal and Ireland seemed to have had little to offer the combatants other than intrigue. Perhaps Franco's Spain can be said to have made best use of the opportunities offered, though I wouldn't consider that any of these countries elevated neutrality to a moral high ground, rather they hoped that one side or the other would prevail, but were not betting their shirts. Expedient? Pragmatic? Sure. Morally superior? Hardly.
To try to desperately haul myself back on board the OP's thread, I have never understood the moral superiority often expressed by those who espoused neutrality in WW2. Here we had the choice of either fighting dictatorships that invaded and brutally repressed their neighbours, and then threatening their neighbours in turn, or of simply sitting on the sidelines and seeing how things turned out. Quite well, it would seem, for most whose neutrality survived the war. Certainly Sweden and Switzerland never looked back, though Portugal and Ireland seemed to have had little to offer the combatants other than intrigue. Perhaps Franco's Spain can be said to have made best use of the opportunities offered, though I wouldn't consider that any of these countries elevated neutrality to a moral high ground, rather they hoped that one side or the other would prevail, but were not betting their shirts. Expedient? Pragmatic? Sure. Morally superior? Hardly.
Gentleman Aviator
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
The 26 Counties (or whatever you wish to call it) remained a member of the Commonwealth until 1949, so His Majesty retained some duties/responsibilities.
Sorry to jump back to WWII medals again, but I'm currently watching 633 Sqn on ITV4 + i've noticed an awful lot of the chaps sporting 39-45 ribbons, when its meant to be 1944? I undrstand that campaign stars, save the Africa Star, didn't appear until after the war when the medals and awards review boardboard, or whatever they're called, decided what merited what. I often wonder who advises on such detail in these films, they must ignore what they're being told sometimes and just do their own thing. Harumph!!
FB
FB
Chugalug, I must say I agree that I could never see the logic of cutting off the qualification period for both the ACE and Atlantic Stars at D Day, but for good or ill nothing is going to alter it now.
Interesting point about Irish membership of the Commonwealth, teeteringhead. Does that mean that the king was the Irish head of state during the war?
Finningly Boy, I'm going to have to start charging you for educating you about WW2 medals
. The 1939-45 Star started life as the 1939-43 Star, and the ribbon (but not the medal itself) was issued for wear from 1943 on. I have a photo somewhere of my father wearing it alongside the Africa Star ribbon sometime in 1943 or 44. You do get a lot of mistakes in films I agree, ribbons in the wrong order, upside down, etc, but in this case they seemed to be ok, other than rather too many DFCs and AFCs than you'd expect to find.
Interesting point about Irish membership of the Commonwealth, teeteringhead. Does that mean that the king was the Irish head of state during the war?
Finningly Boy, I'm going to have to start charging you for educating you about WW2 medals
. The 1939-45 Star started life as the 1939-43 Star, and the ribbon (but not the medal itself) was issued for wear from 1943 on. I have a photo somewhere of my father wearing it alongside the Africa Star ribbon sometime in 1943 or 44. You do get a lot of mistakes in films I agree, ribbons in the wrong order, upside down, etc, but in this case they seemed to be ok, other than rather too many DFCs and AFCs than you'd expect to find.
Gentleman Aviator
Does that mean that the king was the Irish head of state during the war?
So I'm unsure (and will try and find out definitively) what part the King would have to play as Head of Commonwealth if not of State. After all, Auntie Betty is Head of a Commonwealth which includes some countries (firstly India) with their own Pres .....
More research needed![edited to add the further research!]
The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 of the Republic of Ireland contains the following:
3.—(1) It is hereby declared and enacted that, so long as Saorstát Eireann is associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and South Africa, and so long as the king recognised by those nations as the symbol of their co-operation continues to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the advice of the several Governments thereof) for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the king so recognised may, and is hereby authorised to, act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do.
1.—The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 (No. 58 of 1936), is hereby repealed.
Both Acts referenced from the Irish Attorney General's Irish Statute Book Website!
Perhaps I shouldn't get out more!
Last edited by teeteringhead; 2nd Jan 2012 at 16:09.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do get a lot of mistakes in films I agree, ribbons in the wrong order, upside down, etc,
Quote:
Does that mean that the king was the Irish head of state during the war?
.... I think not TTN, as they had their own pres, the aforementioned Mr DeValera.
Does that mean that the king was the Irish head of state during the war?
.... I think not TTN, as they had their own pres, the aforementioned Mr DeValera.
President of Ireland from 1938 to 1945 was Dr Douglas Hyde
So under the terms of the 1936 Act he was still King throughout the War . Which makes the Irish actions even more reprehensible and quite possibly illegal!
As the Parliment of Ireland had voted to remain neutral and not get involved then how was it illegal ?
To try to desperately haul myself back on board the OP's thread, I have never understood the moral superiority often expressed by those who espoused neutrality in WW2. Here we had the choice of either fighting dictatorships that invaded and brutally repressed their neighbours, and then threatening their neighbours in turn, or of simply sitting on the sidelines and seeing how things turned out. Quite well, it would seem, for most whose neutrality survived the war. Certainly Sweden and Switzerland never looked back, though Portugal and Ireland seemed to have had little to offer the combatants other than intrigue. Perhaps Franco's Spain can be said to have made best use of the opportunities offered, though I wouldn't consider that any of these countries elevated neutrality to a moral high ground, rather they hoped that one side or the other would prevail, but were not betting their shirts. Expedient? Pragmatic? Sure. Morally superior? Hardly.
Spain had just come through a vicious civil war with in excess of 500,000 people killed,
Portugal has had 30 plus years of instability with coups and dictatorship with mass poverty
Ireland had come through a vicious War of Independence with a country now at war with a country which had never invaded it and following that a Civil war still alive in peoples memories
Countries staying out of WW2 and remaining neutral were more concerned with their survival as nations rather than being part of YET another major war between Europe's great powers.
I use the word YET as the previous couple of centuries were full of wars and skirmishes between the major powers and the little countries always got penalised. Unfortunately in the 20th century man found a way to kill on a greater scale.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
possibly the same law applies to films? Deliberate errors?
Ireland remained a dominion of the UK until 1948. But whereas in WW1, where the dominions entered the war with Britain because an act of agression on one was considered an act against all, this was not the case in WW2.
De Valera was a pragmatist who had a difficult job leading the independant, but still very fractionised Ireland. He had tried to reign in the people in his governemnt who had wanted to side with the enemies of the British realising that Ireland's independance would be in jeopardy if the UK was invaded. In fact, it was quite apparent that Germany had no intentions of respecting Ireland's neutrality had the planned invasion of Britain been successful. Some of his actions such as signing Hitler's condolence book should be seen in the light of diplomatic relations.
In fact, despite relations with Nazi Germany, the Irish were more helpful to Britain than their neutrality would have normally demanded. The return of Allied airmen and seamen where Axis personnel were interned, the allowed use of Irish airspace and the positioning of Allied radars on Irish soil all demonstrate this.
Which makes the handling of the Irish Governemnt to these soldiers inexcusable. An apology should be given.
De Valera was a pragmatist who had a difficult job leading the independant, but still very fractionised Ireland. He had tried to reign in the people in his governemnt who had wanted to side with the enemies of the British realising that Ireland's independance would be in jeopardy if the UK was invaded. In fact, it was quite apparent that Germany had no intentions of respecting Ireland's neutrality had the planned invasion of Britain been successful. Some of his actions such as signing Hitler's condolence book should be seen in the light of diplomatic relations.
In fact, despite relations with Nazi Germany, the Irish were more helpful to Britain than their neutrality would have normally demanded. The return of Allied airmen and seamen where Axis personnel were interned, the allowed use of Irish airspace and the positioning of Allied radars on Irish soil all demonstrate this.
Which makes the handling of the Irish Governemnt to these soldiers inexcusable. An apology should be given.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can back Dan Winterland's post with eye witness evidence, a friend of mine's father lived in Dublin during the war and had seen British airmen being put on the boat back to the UK, most of these people were pleased to be going back for a second chance to fight, one to two he told me were physically put on the boat by the Irish authority's. Clearly a small minority saw the Irish republic as a danger free bolt hole in which to sit out the war.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to start?
I really have to nail a few errors and misrepresentations perpetrated here. It continues to surprise me how often wartime propaganda and rumour passes for fact even after this length of time.
First, to declare an interest. One of my uncles, possibly two fall into that category. One definitely deserted the Irish army and went to England. I don't know if he served in the British forces but he remained a little nervous that he might be arrested on his visits home. Another uncle was a member of the LDF (Home Guard) and left to join the RAF but failed the medical. I'd be interested in seeing the list to see if they're there.
What happened is a disgrace and should be redressed however late it is now.
Tankertrashnav
Recommend you acquire a book called 'Guarding Neutral Ireland' by Michael Kennedy. A scholarly work which nails many of the myth surrounding Ireland's so called neutrality. How about a British naval attache accompanying the head of Irish military intelligence on an inspection tour of the Coast Watching service? Not very neutral. There are numerous examples.
Just a Spotter, get your facts right:
Absolutely untrue. There is nothing in the constitution about neutrality and there never will be. As things stand Ireland is currently not even neutral. Ireland is non aligned. There was even a attempt to join NATO after the war.
As for your pedantic reiteration, where's the roll eyes icon
, of the correct title of the country. It's unneccessary. We all know exactly what's meant. During the war it was Eire or the Irish Free State. Now it's Ireland but if you're British and want to be specific, Republic of Ireland. Get over it.
Dublin wasn't levelled and that's a matter of historical fact. The damage was localised and there's plenty of photos to prove that. I'm also sorry to see you denigrate the rebellion as merely 'small and poorly organised'.
Parabellum:
I think you'll find that it was May 1943 and all were released. In fact there never was an intention to intern Allied airmen but the Germans complained about unfair treatment and it became neccessary with the agreement of the British. It's a well known story but they weren't exactly locked up and most lived a full life of hunting, fishing, dancing and chasing girls and even studying in college. In reality many others were quietly conveyed to the border. There was even a case or two of aircraft being refuelled and allowed to continue. No US service personnel were interned. There was plenty of collusion even by the military.
Dan Winterland:
Not true in fact but other than that you are correct.
To redress the balance somewhat, there were plenty of examples of favourable treatment of ex HM services people in business and the professions. Much of which even then was dominated by Anglo Irish Protestants. My Father's employer for example had a strict employment policy of hiring British ex servicemen, followed by Irish protestants and Irish Catholic ex service and eventually when all else failed Irish Catholics like my Dad. This was in Dublin by the way. This kind of thing was prevalent. Guinness only appointed it's first Catholic manager in the sixties.
Such was the reality of the times.
I really have to nail a few errors and misrepresentations perpetrated here. It continues to surprise me how often wartime propaganda and rumour passes for fact even after this length of time. First, to declare an interest. One of my uncles, possibly two fall into that category. One definitely deserted the Irish army and went to England. I don't know if he served in the British forces but he remained a little nervous that he might be arrested on his visits home. Another uncle was a member of the LDF (Home Guard) and left to join the RAF but failed the medical. I'd be interested in seeing the list to see if they're there.
What happened is a disgrace and should be redressed however late it is now.
Tankertrashnav
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,
Just a Spotter, get your facts right:
In fact it is the Constitution of Ireland that imposed neutrality on the State.
As for your pedantic reiteration, where's the roll eyes icon
, of the correct title of the country. It's unneccessary. We all know exactly what's meant. During the war it was Eire or the Irish Free State. Now it's Ireland but if you're British and want to be specific, Republic of Ireland. Get over it.
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
Parabellum:
According to a recent article published here in Oz, relating to a TV programme I missed, some 534 allied airmen were detained in The Republic of Ireland, most were released in May 1945. Some escaped to the North due to lax security and possible collusion as well as a friendly public.
Dan Winterland:
the positioning of Allied radars on Irish soil all demonstrate this.
To redress the balance somewhat, there were plenty of examples of favourable treatment of ex HM services people in business and the professions. Much of which even then was dominated by Anglo Irish Protestants. My Father's employer for example had a strict employment policy of hiring British ex servicemen, followed by Irish protestants and Irish Catholic ex service and eventually when all else failed Irish Catholics like my Dad. This was in Dublin by the way. This kind of thing was prevalent. Guinness only appointed it's first Catholic manager in the sixties.
Such was the reality of the times.