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

Let nobody forget that their President, Eamon de Valera, formally gave his condolences to the German people upon the death of Adolph Hitler.

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.

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.

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.

Chug - my comment was about child abuse? I'm not aware of any BC crew's children being arrested and placed in 'prison camps'?

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.

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.............

?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

Well, as a minimum, they'd have their day in court with a trial with representation. And their children wouldn't have been arrested and detained.

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? :hmm:

- difficult to draw a parallel there, as the UK had not declared itself 'neutral' in the Gadaffi affair. To add to Orac's post - I think that desertion from a war zone can still 'technically' be punishable by death via the 'due process', so if someone 'defected' in a war zone I guess that would apply. 'Defection' by a member of the Armed Forces outside a war zone would be punishable by imprisonment. As Orac says, though, their children would not be taken away to be abused by 'pseudo religious' folk (or anyone, hopefully).

That is a very simplistic and disingenuous view that tries to establish equivalence between the sovereignty of the Irish Free State and that of the UK.

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:mad:

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.

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 :uhoh:

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

That may be what you think, but thousands of loyal Irishmen disagreed with you.

In the UK the Ireland Act 1949 provided that "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of the state under UK law. So there.

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.

Well now, at the risk of serious thread creep, I wasn't aware that the UK's 1949 act had applied a name to the country that was different to it's official titile and that which is internationally recognised.

From the Irish Constitution
Amazing what you pick up on PPRuNe these days!

;)

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.

Nope it is the legal term and claiming its not desertion because it benefits one side rather than the other is playing semantics. Churchill wanted to invade Ireland and take back the ports it gave back in 1938...........Irish Govt was as worried about UK invasion as it was of German.

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.

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.

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.

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 both the British and Australian governments apologised.

Hopefully the Irish government will follow the example.

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?

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.:ouch:

FB:)

Chugalug is actually correct, Finningley Boy. The France and Germany Star replaced the Aircrew Europe Star for ops flown from 6th June 1944 on. However to describe it as the medal awarded to army rear echelons is to ignore the fact that it was also awarded to British and Commonwealth soldiers who fought their way from the beaches of Normandy to Berlin and who dropped and fought at Arnhem and on the Rhine crossing. Tens of thousands of them were killed or wounded in the process, so there is no question of the France and Germany Star being an inferior medal

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.

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.

... not at all justaspotter and others.

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:)

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.

Thanks for the info Tankertrashnav, I stand corrected. Cliff Robertson has just disobeyed a direct order to abort the mission, by the way!:ok:

FB:)

.... I think not TTN, as they had their own pres, the aforementioned Mr DeValera.

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 .....:confused: More research needed!

[edited to add the further research!]

The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 of the Republic of Ireland contains the following:
This Act was not repealed (and so was de jure still valid) until it was specifically so in the first section of the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948.
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!

Both Acts referenced from the Irish Attorney General's Irish Statute Book Website!

Perhaps I shouldn't get out more! :ok:

Not sure if it still is but it used to be an offence to wear the King's/Queens uniform on stage, my father was quite involved in the theatre at one time, (fifties), they would overcome this by taking the medal ribbon bar and inverting it, possibly the same law applies to films? Deliberate errors?

Er No

President of Ireland from 1938 to 1945 was Dr Douglas Hyde

Illegal to whom ?

As the Parliment of Ireland had voted to remain neutral and not get involved then how was it illegal ?

Dunno why you would see neutrality as being morally superior.........somehow the neutral countries didn't.

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.

I would say you are correct parabellum. Couple of nights ago watched a TV show (drama) involving RAN and all wore the ribbons on the wrong side. Obviously a deliberate error of which you speak.

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.

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.

Where to start?:ugh: 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.

TankertrashnavRecommend 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:rolleyes:, 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.

Should not be forgotten that had the Allies had not been aware of a particular weather observation from Black Sod point, John Stagg would not have given his advice and D-Day might have had an different outcome.