The order was made on 8 August 1945 by Éamon de Valera as Taoiseach in the then Government, using power granted to the government under the Emergency Powers Act 1939 passed on the outbreak of the War. It was revoked with effect from 1 August 1946,[1] a month before the 1939 act lapsed; but it was in effect continued by section 13 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946.[2] While some deserters had been court-martialled by the time the order was issued, most were abroad: some still on active service, others demobilised but afraid to return. For such people, the order forestalled any court-martial or consequent punishment. The order only applied to members of the Army Reserve or who had enlisted for the duration of the Emergency; pre-war soldiers who deserted remained liable to court-martial.[3] Canny lists four motivations for the order: as positive discrimination for those who had remained in the Defence Forces; to deter future desertions; to allow deserters to return to Ireland; and to provide a simpler, cheaper alternative to courts-martial.[3] A list of personnel affected by the order was maintained by the government; it was published in 2011.[4] Bernard Kelly has called the order "a highly pragmatic piece of political calculation".[5]
On 18 October 1945, T. F. O'Higgins proposed in the Dáil, seconded by Patrick McGilligan, that the order be annulled, and dubbed it the starvation order because of the hardship imposed.[6]Richard Mulcahy objected that only enlisted men were covered, not officers.[6][7]Matthew O'Reilly argued the order's penalties were in fact more lenient than those to which deserters would otherwise have been subject under military law.[6] Canny states that in practice those covered by the order were more severely treated than those already arrested and tried.[7] O'Higgins' motion was defeated.[6] The Exchange Telegraph report on the motion was published in many foreign newspapers, causing Joseph Walshe to complain that it gave "a mere routine measure of Army administration the character of an act of political vengeance".[8]
In the 2000s a campaign began for pardons for those who deserted to join the Allied forces.[9][10] The Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Act 2013 provided an amnesty rather than a pardon, because the Constitution of Ireland provides that a pardon can only be granted individually by the President.[11][12] The amnesty covered 4,634 people affected by the 1945 order or the 1946 act,[5] and about 2,500 others who had been court-martialled or prosecuted in court.[13] Michael Kennedy of the Royal Irish Academy has called for study of the motives and backgrounds of those who deserted, noting that desertion was highest in units near the Irish border.[14]
Sources
Department of the Taoiseach (8 August 1945). "Emergency powers (no. 362) order 1945"(PDF). Government publications. Dublin: Stationery Office. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
Canny, Liam (1998–99). "Pariah Dogs: Deserters from the Irish Defence Forces Who Joined the British Armed Forces during 'The Emergency'". Studia Hibernica (30): 231–249. JSTOR20495095.
^List of personnel of the Irish Defence Forces dismissed for desertion during the National Emergency. Lewes: Naval & Military. 2011. ISBN9781845748883. OCLC794817291.
^"Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill 2012 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Continued)". Dáil Éireann debates. 6 March 2013. Retrieved 28 October 2014. Deputies will have noticed the Bill provides for an amnesty for those convicted of desertion or being absent without leave, rather than a pardon as was originally envisaged by Government. This change has been made for technical reasons and is in line with legal advice provided to me during the drafting process by the Attorney General to the effect that a pardon would require that each case be individually processed, a situation that would clearly not be possible in practical terms.
Quinn, Joseph (26 November 2020). "The 'desertions crisis' in the Irish defence forces during the Second World War, 1939–1945". War in History. 28 (4): 825–847. doi:10.1177/0968344520932960. S2CID229393194.