Record numbers of free staters flock to join British Army

[Aerlik]

After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

Why can't a planter name be as ancestoral as a Cambro-Norman name, a Norse name, a Gall-Gael, Scot-Gael or Cambro-Norman and Norse gaelized names found all over Ireland? Is it a case of Pre-Confederacy of Kilkenny invaders good, the rest bad?

You've clearly NEVER been there.

[Myles Na G.]

After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

Why can't a planter name be as ancestoral as a Cambro-Norman name, a Norse name, a Gall-Gael, Scot-Gael or Cambro-Norman and Norse gaelized names found all over Ireland? Is it a case of Pre-Confederacy of Kilkenny invaders good, the rest bad?

You've clearly NEVER been there.

Well dodged.

[J70]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

[Evil Genius]

EG your high moral ground is merely a mass grave.

WWII for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The strange thing about that article is that, while it blames 'The Indian Government' many times, it only once vaguely mentions that India was under British Rule at the time.

And how does British misrule in India absolve Dev from responsibility for persecuting Irish people in a totally unconstitutional and extra-judicial manner?

"Whataboutery" at its most blatant...

[anglocelt39]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders

[Evil Genius]

Interesting bit of categorisation amongst your existentialist musings, there - "Brits, wannabe Brits or Unionists".  For inconvenient though it may be to your argument, Unionists are  "Brits".

If you think that those folk from Britain (the real British  ), and amongst whom you currently dwell, think of you as anything other than an out-and-out Paddy then you're even more (incredibly) delusional than I had you noted for; "Brits" to them you most certainly aren't (unless you now speak with a Cockney twang or such).

And I could argue that real  Irish folk who live in the Irish Republic and amongst whom you don't  dwell think of you in less-than-complimentary terms, too, if all the threads on this forum about "Nordies" and "Free Staters" etc are anything to go by! 

But I won't, since that would be childish.

And besides, I am entirely comfortable living amongst my fellow Britons, and have done all my life, irrespective of what part of the Kingdom that has been in.

[Evil Genius]

were brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like...

"Too"? I've seen some weird debating devices in my time but ...
They didn't shoot ANYONE.
And I never suggested they should have shot anyone, never mind the children.
So I'm at a loss as to what that remark can mean.

You implied that they (deserters) might be grateful they weren't shot. I am of the opinion that punishing their families (by removing children) was quite bad enough.

My sarcastic comment about "shooting the children" was exagerration for effect.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

And I could argue that real  Irish folk who live in the Irish Republic and amongst whom you don't  dwell think of you in less-than-complimentary terms, too, if all the threads on this forum about "Nordies" and "Free Staters" etc are anything to go by! 

No you couldn't, simply because you're incorrect on just about everything (just for a change) in that statement.

[Evil Genius]

After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the west of Ulster.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Two things Equitable Gobshite....

(1)  The name "Montgomery" is not a Moville/Donegal/Irish name - it is the name of a planter family.  Nothing "ancestral" about it. 

I'm no geneologist, but I'd guess that Montgomery's ancestors* were in Donegal for hundreds of years, most likely since before eg the first Europeans landed in Australia.

Speaking of where, how long have you and your family been in Oz, then? 

* - Note the word "ancestors" (it's got the same roots as "ancestral", in case you can't spot the link)

(2)  You obviously are in a very tight corner as you are citing Wikipedia - no-one in academia EVER cites Wikipedia as a source/reference.

Sorry, Professor.

Will this do?

http://www.movilleinishowen.com/history/moville_heritage/moville_heritage_htm/family_field_marshall_montgomery.htm

[Evil Genius]

Good to see them recognised at last. The Irish did alot in WW2. Didn't know they were punished for doing it.

Indeed.

Cavanman helped soften up Rommel for Monty you know.

Himself of solid Ulster stock:
Montgomery was born in Kennington, London, in 1887, the fourth child of nine, to an Anglo-Irish Anglican priest, the Revd Henry Montgomery, and Maud Montgomery (née Farrar). Henry Montgomery, at the time the Vicar of St Mark's, Kennington, was the second son of the noted Indian administrator, Sir Robert Montgomery, who died a month after Bernard's birth. Bernard's mother Maud was the daughter of the well-known preacher Frederic William Farrar, and was 18 years younger than her husband. After the death of Sir Robert Montgomery, Henry inherited the Montgomery ancestral estate of New Park at Moville, a town on the Inishowen Peninsula of north County Donegal in the North-west of UlsterIreland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

Donegal is 26 county territory lest you forget.

Why would I "forget"? 

There is one thing joining the armed forces of another country, but deserting your own army to join another army, well that is treason as far as I am concerned.

I think the term "treason" would be more appropriate had they turned their guns on their former comrades-in-arms, like eg Benedict Arnold, or the foreign legions of the SS.
In fact, it could be argued that these people were doing more to preserve the Free State by opposing Hitler and his infamous "Operation Green", than by adopting a (craven) policy of neutrality towards him (though that would be pushing things a bit!)

I have a question for you E.G., in relative terms a similar % of British would come to 50,000. If 50,000 British soldiers had deserted to join the army of neutral Ireland, do you really think they would be treated with any common courtesy on the Island of Britain or among the Unionist community of Ireland's North-East? I would be pretty sure they would be still unforgiven.

It is not a question of such people receiving "common courtesy", rather they must be entitled to a fair trial, subsequent to which they may be punished as the law and constitution prescribes.

None of that happened in the case of the 5,000.

[Hardy]

were brutally punished on their return home

Brutally? Perhaps, but not by comparison with the norm for desertion. Don't most armies shoot deserters in times of emergency?

Just seen a further report on this by John Waite on TV.

Apparently in some cases, Dev's Government took their children from them and placed them in State institutions*.

Perhaps they should have shot the children, too?


* - And we all know what many of those were like...

"Too"? I've seen some weird debating devices in my time but ...
They didn't shoot ANYONE.
And I never suggested they should have shot anyone, never mind the children.
So I'm at a loss as to what that remark can mean.

You implied that they (deserters) might be grateful they weren't shot. I am of the opinion that punishing their families (by removing children) was quite bad enough.

My sarcastic comment about "shooting the children" was exagerration for effect.

Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead.

[mylestheslasher]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

[Myles Na G.]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

[J70]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Well said.

[mylestheslasher]

5000 switched uniforms = 5000 deserted the army they took a vow to and joined another army. 5000 were instructed by their government to remain neutral and they disobeyed and took a side. When they returned they were to be punished by having their pension removed - what did they expect, to be welcomed as heroes. This is a totally different issue than your average joe on the street heading off to join the british army. These men were deserters and as Hardy said, the british army and german army dealt with such people in a much more brutal fashion than dev did. Saying that, i see no reason that any outstanding  "action" against these men should continue (and i seriously doubt anyone is too bothered about chasing them for their crimes today). However, I certainly don't think their actions should be glorified. I would be interested to know why it was they did what they did so for that reason I may try and tune in.

Just because what they did broke the law does not mean it wasn't the morally correct thing to do. Would you criticize a German soldier for switching sides?

Arrah sure the poor aul nazi's were only following orders

The german army were committing war crimes and were the aggressor in the war, I think in this instance a deserter would be morally correct to leave. The Irish army were neutral and were on tender hooks because they didn't know whether Ireland might be invaded by the brits or the germans or both. These men swore an oath to protect ireland. What if as british solidiers they were instructed to invade ireland? Comparing these men to deserters of the german army is wrong

Maybe these men thought it was morally correct to fight the aggressor who was committing these war crimes and who would no doubt have threatened to do the same in Ireland given the opportunity. Maybe these men thought the best way of defending their country was to abandon the army which was doing nothing and to join one which was actively trying to halt the aggressor. Who knows what these men thought. They weren't given the opportunity in a court, civil or military, to state their case.

Perhaps or perhaps they just wanted to go around the world shooting people for a bit of craic. Maybe we will find out on the radio show why they did what they did - if of course they are honest about their reasoning. Still doesn't change the fact they deserted their own army and were simply punished for doing so.