# Why Irish soldiers who fought Hitler hide their medals - article from the BBC



## Solomance (28 Dec 2011)

From the BBC UK news page.



> Five thousand Irish soldiers who swapped uniforms to fight for the British against Hitler went on to suffer years of persecution.
> 
> One of them, 92-year-old Phil Farrington, took part in the D-Day landings and helped liberate the German death camp at Bergen-Belsen - but he wears his medals in secret.
> 
> ...



thre rest can be found at the link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211


----------



## Steve1987 (28 Dec 2011)

I think if I were in this mans situation, I would have moved long ago!   I realize it may not be that easy though, a very tragic situation. 

-Steve


----------



## Pusser (28 Dec 2011)

This is not entirely dissimilar to the situation in Canada with the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion which fought in the Spanish Civil War.  The Canadian Foreign Enlistment Act was passed in 1937 (the 1985 version is still in effect) in an effort to prevent Canadians from fighting in that war (didn't work).  Mac-Pap veterans had difficulty returning home, were often investigated and watched by the RCMP (they also tended to have close ties with if they were not actual members of the Communist Party) and have never received any form of formal recognition from Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is not entirely dissimilar to the situation in Canada with the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion which fought in the Spanish Civil War ....


The biggest difference appears to be that the Irish who were members of their military and left to fight with the British were (and continue to be) treated as deserters, with subsequent sanctions based on their "left their post" status.  I stand to be corrected, but I understand _most_ of the Mac-Pap volunteers were civilians, not members of the Canadian military.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The biggest difference appears to be that the Irish who were members of their military and left to fight with the British were (and continue to be) treated as deserters, with subsequent sanctions based on their "left their post" status.  I stand to be corrected, but I understand _most_ of the Mac-Pap volunteers were civilians, not members of the Canadian military.



Yet the difference was the Irish Deserted, to join the Army of the "Enemy".  This was why they were treated as Pariahs.  The Irish hatred for the English, was much greater than that of the Germans.  In fact through out the war Germany tried to exploit that hatred, and recruit the Irish to rebel against the English.

dileas

tess


----------



## Tank Troll (28 Dec 2011)

The Germans tried that with Irish Prisoners of War during WW I also, and some Canadian POWs that were captured at Dieppe in WW II.


----------



## Pusser (28 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The biggest difference appears to be that the Irish who were members of their military and left to fight with the British were (and continue to be) treated as deserters, with subsequent sanctions based on their "left their post" status.  I stand to be corrected, but I understand _most_ of the Mac-Pap volunteers were civilians, not members of the Canadian military.



True enough with respect to the Mac-Paps.  I'm not aware of any serving members of the Canadian forces leaving in order to join them.  However, the article is confusing in that it says:

"_He was one of about 5,000 Irish soldiers who deserted their own neutral army to join the war against fascism and who were brutally punished on their return home as a result.

They were formally dismissed from the Irish army, stripped of all pay and pension rights, and prevented from finding work by being banned for seven years from any employment paid for by state or government funds."_

How can you be a deserter and then formally dismissed from the army?  Being dismissed should nullify the desertion I would think.  Furthermore, they weren't arrested and thrown in prison for desertion.  They were simply turned into pariahs.  Yet, the ones who deserted to take up criminal pursuits in Ireland were not treated as badly.

 It's worth noting that this kind of treatment was not confined to WWII or to the army.  I once worked with an RAF officer whose father had left Ireland to look for work in England (the Irish economy being in the toilet at the time) and was never able to return due to the hostility directed against him by former friends and family.

The Irish were certainly treated badly within the British Empire, but they often treated themselves even worse.  I recommend seeing the movie, _The Magdalene Sisters_ to illustrate this point.


----------



## Pusser (28 Dec 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yet the difference was the Irish Deserted, to join the Army of the "Enemy".  This was why they were treated as Pariahs.  The Irish hatred for the English, was much greater than that of the Germans.  In fact through out the war Germany tried to exploit that hatred, and recruit the Irish to rebel against the English.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



The Irish didn't need to rebel against the English during WWII as they were already independent at that time (although still a member of the Commonwealth).  The Germans did raise battalions of Irish "volunteers" during WWI though.  There are uniforms (complete with shamrocks) on display in the museum in Dublin.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Irish didn't need to rebel against the English during WWII as they were already independent at that time (although still a member of the Commonwealth).  The Germans did raise battalions of Irish "volunteers" during WWI though.  There are uniforms (complete with shamrocks) on display in the museum in Dublin.



Psst....The South was free, not the North.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Dec 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Psst....The South was free, not the North.....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




The North is equally free. Free of Southern domination, too.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The North is equally free. Free of Southern domination, too.



Roger that.

I shall pull away from this thick scab picking.  I guess in three posts we proved that these lads had nothing to fear, it was all a facade.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2011)

Naw,...you just proved that folks living here can be just as thick and stupid as the folks over there.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Dec 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Naw,...you just proved that folks living here can be just as thick and stupid as the folks over there.



Uhuh,

 :

Oh wait, lemme use a cute smiley to the diffuse the situation.  :christmas happy:

dileas

tess


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> . . . . . However, the article is confusing in that it says:
> 
> "_He was one of about 5,000 Irish soldiers who deserted their own neutral army to join the war against fascism and who were brutally punished on their return home as a result.
> 
> ...



Being a deserter and receiving a punishment of dismissal (with or without disgrace/ignominy) even if it did not include imprisonment are not incompatible.  For an army (like Eire's at the time) that was not on active service or in the field during a period of hostilities, it may have been the norm.  Not having a copy of the code of service discipline that applied to these Micks at the time, I can only speculate as to what disciplinary procedures they were subject to and what the scale of punishments included for their offence.  However, based on contemporary British and Canadian military law, a deserter could be dismissed from the service without being subject to penal servitude or imprisonment (dismissal being a lesser included punishment).

I am slightly familiar with only one instance of desertion in the CF - it being a coursemate from my TQ3 in the 1970s.  After he arrived at his first posting (Petawawa IIRC), he left soon thereafter and (according to the story) went back home to Manitoba.  The normal procedures were followed by the CF (faint efforts to locate him, convince him to return, issue a warrant for his arrest . . .) and following the standard period (six months?) his status was changed from AWOL to deserter.  I'm not sure whether he was administratively released in the interim but sometime later he was arrested and returned to CF control.  He was tried and convicted of desertion.  His sentence - dismissal (there was a fine but no imprisonment).  Of course, we may have been a kinder gentler military than some - at one time there was a deserter from the French Foreign Legion who was a dependant in Lahr.  It came to my attention when he was scheduled for a specialist appointment in Strasbourg and he had to explain why he could not cross over to France.  Seems he had received word that he had been convicted in absentia of desertion and would have been shipped off to serve a three year sentence if the French got their hands on him.

Granted in the case of these Irishmen going off to fight Hitler, there was probably an (Irish) institutional sense of meanness because of  prior British activities that were still in recent memory.  The other aspects of their ordeal may not have been part of their service punishment but could have been legislative/regulatory sanctions imposed following their dismissal from the army.


----------

