TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: Time to ask questions about Irish army deserters during World War II

What do we know about the men who deserted during the war? Noble heroes who fought for the allies, mercenaries who battled the Nazis, or simply men who wanted out, asks Dr Michael Kennedy.

Dr Michael Kennedy

Following this week’s announcement that the Minister for Defence Alan Shatter is to introduce legislation that will provide a formal amnesty to soldiers who deserted the Irish Defence Forces to fight for the allies in World War II, Dr Michael Kennedy asks who these men were, and are we ashamed of our war time neutrality?

ALAN SHATTER’S STATEMENT to the Dáil on the forthcoming pardon and amnesty for Second World War Defence Forces deserters makes interesting and welcome reading.

It will apply to ‘those members of the Defence Forces who left to fight on the Allied side during World War II’ for how they were ‘treated after the War by the State’. The Minister’s statement highlights the need for understanding and forgiveness; it signals that Ireland has moved on from the condemnatory agenda of 1945.

There are still many questions remaining to be answered about the deserters themselves. Now perhaps is the time to begin a more detailed examination.

The one-size-fits-all approach taken to deserters after the war through Emergency Powers Order 362 was pragmatic, but it was harsh. As Bernard Kelly points out in Returning Home, his recent account of Irish soldiers who fought in the British Army, EPO 362 was unnecessary in reality. As they were without Defence Forces’ discharge papers those who deserted already could not get state jobs.

Reading the 1945 Dáil Debate on EPO 362 the immediate conclusion one draws is that the debate was for political ends alone as government and opposition clashed over wartime policies. Those who deserted were political footballs, kicked backwards and forwards across the chamber, as politicians scored political points against each other.

Who were the deserters? Noble fighters, mercenaries, or otherwise?

How many deserters fought with the Allies is still an unknown. Who they were is also a mystery. We know them only as a category and from the voices of one or two individuals who have gone on the record. But we cannot, and perhaps never will, be able to tell from the list of names of deserters published by the de Valera government after the war which of them joined the Allies. It was not known in 1945 and it is not known now.

It is strange that such an obvious point is rarely made in the recent coverage of the deserters question that often assumes that all on the deserters list fought on the Allied side. They did not.

The pardon will be a personal and private affair for many individuals and families. But perhaps too it will enable some veterans to tell their stories for the first time and tell us about why they deserted. We know little or nothing in fact about what motivated deserters and rely on conjecture as to their motivation.

The ‘blacklist’ of over 4,500 deserters names published after the war has not, as far as I am aware, been subject to any investigation, analysis or detailed breakdown. It is an obvious research project for a group of historians and statisticians. It would have an immediate public interest.

We do not know the age profile of deserters. What was their social class? What were their civilian and army backgrounds? We know only that they were predominantly from units stationed around the border.

A number-cruncher and a historian could thus do some important work on explaining the blacklist and so put it to good use. But even after this we would still not know which deserters joined the Allies. The terms of the pardon and amnesty legislation are awaited, but it seems likely that the Minister’s pardon can only apply to a group and not to named individuals.

It is entirely possible that amongst those who deserted were individuals with less noble reasons than fighting with the Allies against Nazi tyranny. Even amongst those who fought the Nazis there were those who fought as ‘mercenaries’ or for the sheer thrill of soldiering.

The money was better in the British Army that the Irish Defence Forces and so was the likelihood of seeing active service. That is not to deny the undoubted acts of heroism of many deserters, but to make the point we are still far from having satisfactorily resolved the details of the deserters issue. One question worth posing is, given the stigma attached to desertion, whether the British Army knowingly took on Irish and other deserters given Britain’s needs for manpower.

Being Irish: blurred allegiances

The deserters debate shows the value of studying history because it contains so many levels and agendas which help us understand ourselves and our motivations as Irish people. Being Irish in the twentieth century was often a black and white issue.

We now are realising that being Irish is about blurred allegiances. There are more combinations than the simplistic maxims of mid-twentieth century Irish nationalism that pro-British equals anti-Irish. We are a nation of differing communities, backgrounds and histories. Here is a compelling reason for the study of history to be made compulsory at school.

The debate over Defence Forces deserters also suggests that as a people perhaps we are now a little ashamed of our wartime neutrality. Yet as generations pass we are forgetting the mood in Ireland between 1939 and 1945 and the very real possibility of civil war breaking out in Ireland had the de Valera government thrown Ireland’s lot in with the Allies.

We have forgotten that the basis of Ireland’s neutrality was like that of the United States: we would be neutral until we were invaded, then we would fight as long as our limited ability enabled us to do.

There is a chilling series of files in the National Archives which contain the orders to be issued after the invader arrived on Ireland’s shores and de Valera and his ministers sent the Defence Forces into combat.

Just as the Defence Forces maintained and defended Ireland on its sovereign territory, as Minister Shatter’s statement makes clear:

Those who fought on the Allied side also contributed to protecting this State’s sovereignty and independence and our democratic values.

Here is that blurred allegiance in action: both categories of soldier defended Ireland, but in different ways. That is the complexity of our history. Minister Shatter’s pardon and amnesty for deserters is a good starting point to really get studying the issue as an historical one and not a political one.

Dr Michael Kennedy is the executive editor of the Royal Irish Academy’s Documents on Irish Foreign Policy Series, he has written widely on Ireland and the Second World War and his books include ‘Guarding Neutral Ireland’ (2008) and ‘The Irish Defence Forces: 1940-49: The Chief of Staff’s Report’ (2011).

Read next:

Comments (35 Comments)

  • Darren 17/06/12 #

    Good piece

    Reply
  • Just a small observation, throughout this debate it has been assumed that all the deserters joined Allied forces to fight Nazism, however, does anyone know if any of the 4500 actually fought for the Axis powers?

    Reply
  • Aarum 17/06/12 #

    The problem of nazi’s was bigger than ireland, it was a european problem world problem even. if the allies had lost the war ireland wouldn’t be ireland any more, I understand why they would be punished from an Irish government point of view,but it was too harsh. They were all proper heros of their time making Europe safe and saving ireland from nazi rule

    Reply
    • yes, except that it is clear that for most their main motivations were “adventure” and financial gain.

      Surely motivation is all important when deeming someone to be a hero or not? surely selflessness is one of the cornerstones of being a hero? fair enough they did well by their families for going to war to support them and are heroes to them. But to ascribe the label of hero to them as though they were fighting on an anti-Fascist ideological platform is sheer nonsense.

      Reply
    • How is it clear, Kerron? Elaborate please.

      Reply
    • Aarum 17/06/12 #

      Clear that they were motivated by adventure and money? So enlistment in the Irish army was on a voluntary basis then? Don’t be daft, I’m confident that the majority of people that fought against the nazis did so for a greater good, the fear that hitler would take over Europe.
      Sure they got paid, just like they would have got paid from the Irish army
      (maybe more,I don’t know) I’m sure they was an element of adventure, but don’t tell me they weren’t more scared of being killed in a far away country

      Reply
  • Oh fianna fail what a proud legacy you bestow upon us ordinary folk……we could have had a beautiful republic .. Yet what we got was an exclusive playground for bible bashing paedophiles and your elitist cronies with the ordinary person left to rot or emigrate and our children sent for slave labour and abuse ……. Can we have our republic now please and our constitution restored?

    Reply
  • One of my family members joined the 2nd Waffen SS Panzer Division ‘Das Reich’. Will Shatter pardon him?

    Reply
  • How many of these deserters became part of the 100,000 men that deserted the British Army during WWII? Are the British going to forgive them as well?

    Reply
  • When the allies occupied Berlin in 1945, documentation detailing the Nazis’ plans for Ireland after their putative victory were found. In essence, the plan was for the whole island to become the market garden that would feed Europe, with those in the population who were physically fit to work the land to be taken into slave labour and all the rest exterminated.

    Today we have the luxury of getting ventilated about republicanism, imperialism, the church of Rome, the euro, austerity, etc. etc. etc. thanks to all those of whatever ethnicity, confession, motivation or ideals who pitted themselves against this force and triumphed.

    I personally think a great deal more sincere gratitude and a lot less retrospective sanctimoniousness would go a long way.

    Reply
  • the Irish public were pro-Axis during the war, with many upset with the Germans losing. That is one aspect of Irish neutrality that I am ashamed by!

    Reply
    • Paul C 17/06/12 #

      I’m sorry but to say ‘the public supported the axis during the war’ is a ridiculous statement. The sentiment in Ireland was much more nuanced then that. You seem to forget that less than 20 years before the war Ireland was engaged in an all out war of attrition with Britain. Just because much of irish society at the time was anti British does not mean the public in general was pro axis!

      Reply
    • yes that is true in was generally ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, but that was another reason for the strict censorship in Ireland to ensure such support was not given a platform and the level of support was known by the Allies. Sorry if revisionist history upsets you!

      Reply
    • I am afraid Micháel you are talking balderdash and not history and you should be ashamed. Read through the list of air crashes that took place in Ireland during the emergency and tell me what countries airmen got interred and what countries airmen were returned to their country to fight again. It might put you back on the education wagon which you clearly fell off too soon. :)

      http://www.csn.ul.ie/~dan/war/crashes.htm

      Reply
  • My Grandfather was one of those who was listed as a deserter. He lied about his age to join the Irish Army, it would appear. In the great scheme of things, this pardon shouldn’t really matter but I do appreciate, apart from having a brillliant name, Mr Shatter did the right thing in pardoning many men who – if they were like my grandad – joined the British Army as it paid more but meant they couldn’t realistically go home again.

    It will please many contributors that the Nazis shot repeatedly and with great enthusiasm at my grandfather, but to my relief they missed.

    Reply
  • “but to make the point we are still far from having satisfactorily resolved the details of the deserters issue”

    This is simply not true. Recent research by a Trinity PhD student who probably has the same agenda as this Kennedy chap admits that most deserted for economic reasons. Kennedy is attempting to muddy the waters by brining up the fact that “no detailed research has taken place”, and that some fought for the Nazis. It’s clear most fought for the Brits.

    “Some were simply fed up with life in a peacetime army, and wanted to fight with the British forces, either to satisfy a thirst for adventure or to play a part in the struggle against Nazism. But, it appears that most deserted out of economic necessity.”

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0114/1224310243057.html

    “We now are realising that being Irish is about blurred allegiances. There are more combinations than the simplistic maxims of mid-twentieth century Irish nationalism that pro-British equals anti-Irish. We are a nation of differing communities, backgrounds and histories.”

    Revisionist guff!!

    I said months ago that this is where this “discourse” was leading to. That because a few thousand headers decided to leave the Free State army and fight for the Brits, that all of a sudden we are a nation that pull off the contradiction of reconciling itself with giving allegiance to a foreign occupying power while also calling itself Irish??

    Next stop on the anti-nationalist train: the imperial butchery of the Somme is as progressive as the anti-imperial nationalism of those who fought during Easter Week! This is all an agenda by establishment academia and the corporate media to discredit Irish Republicanism in the run up to 2016.

    The last thing they want to see is a reawakening of national consciousness and questions being asked about what exactly the 7 signatories of the proclamation fought for. It wasn’t for a Twenty-Six county Euro and austerity enslaved sham state! It was for a 32 county Republic that cherished all the children of the nation equally! Uncomfortable truths for some.

    Reply
  • Sue Tulk 17/06/12 #

    Kerron, WWII didn’t start out being about the Holocaust. I take your description of me as a “typical liberal” as a compliment – thank you!

    Reply
    • well then why were you harping on about Operation Green and other such nonsense that only came to light in 1945 when these lads left the Free State army to fight with the Brits in the early 1940s? :-0

      Reply
    • censored 18/06/12 #

      That’s right. WWII, like many of the other European wars was a clash between the “Greater Powers” over who was going to dominate, and benefit economically. Ireland was quite correct to stay neutral, especially since we had only recently won our freedom from the British Empire – you’ve probably forgotten the British Empire, but you can find some information in history books – the Empire effectively lost WWII and disappeared into oblivion. The revisionists would have you believe that this is all black and white, but it isn’t.

      Reply
    • well put Kerron! Revisionist b.s being appliedby Shatter and co!

      Reply
  • They were not mercenaries or soldiers of fortune as they signed up to the allied forces. To say their motivation was because the allied paid a better wage or because of the romanticism surrounding war does not make them mercenaries which operate outside of a regimental chain of command

    Reply
    • “They were not mercenaries or soldiers of fortune as they signed up to the allied forces.”

      what is the logic behind this claim exactly??

      It doesn’t matter what side you were on, if your motivation was not ideological but rather financial then you were a mercenary. Historical research can say whether economics was their motivation and it has shown, just as with WWI, that this is indeed the case.

      you are talking rubbish

      Reply
    • Kerron you should consult a dictionary for a definition of mercenary it’s a highly derogatory term within armed forces. Also most conscripts motivations are economic again consult yr military history esp more recently eg vietnam non draft thru to afghanistan

      Reply
    • Lol

      you’re telling me to consult a dictionary and you’ve said that a conscript’s (someone who is FORCED to enrol in military service) motivation is financial :-o

      yeah, so what if the term is derogatory

      You check your dictionary pal

      mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
      adj.
      1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
      2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
      n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
      1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
      2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

      Reply
  • It was a disgrace the way the government treated so called ‘deserters’. Unfortunately the wounds were still raw with the British and they, the government at the time couldn’t get past their haterd for anything connected with the British,- they couldn’t see the bigger picture!
    So I apuald this announcement today.

    Reply
  • Lenny, where did you learn history? I would not be a big DeValera fan but one of the truly great things he did was to maintain Irish neutrality and it was nothing to do with their ‘hatred of the British”. Its called looking out for Irish interests. Is their some “bigger picture” that only you are aware of? Pray, shine some light for us!

    Reply
  • simple facts are that regardless of their motives, these men took an oath when they joined the Irish Army. They then broke that oath and that made them deserters> Simple!
    A deserter is a deserter is a deserter!
    These lowlives were surprised when they were treated badly when they came home? Should have stayed in England and be treated as heroes or whatever.

    Reply
  • Sue Tulk 17/06/12 #

    Well, not by the Christian Brothers, I have to admit

    Reply

Add New Comment