Talk:William Joyce

Comment on his Accent

Is this comment really needed: "because of a nasal drawl this sounded like: Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling". His accent was pretty normal for the time, I have a feeling this has been added by someone unacquainted with British/Irish accents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.121.215 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish civil war?

Though the family were Roman Catholic, they were strongly unionist and during the Irish civil war of 1921 they supported the British forces. This doesn't make sense. The Irish civil began in 1922 and didn't involve British forces. I'll change to just being unionist. Mintguy (T)

The author undoubtedly meant the Anglo-Irish War. RodCrosby 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Daughters

I have been trying to verify the information regarding Joyce's daughters. My digging suggests that he had two daughters in an earlier relationship and the correct spelling his daughter's surname is Iandolo. CustardJack 11:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charges

"He was tried on three counts of high treason. These were as follows:

• William Joyce, on September 18 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
• William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
• William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies."

Counts one and three are remarkably similar. This is surely an error - otherwise, it merits further explanation.

The difference is the date: on July 2, 1940 Joyce's British passport expired. At the trial, Joyce was found not guilty on counts one and two because of his United States nationality. He was convicted on count three because he had a British passport for the whole of the time (even though it had been issued through his having lied about his nationality, he was able to use it to call on British consular services and therefore was under the protection of the King). David | Talk 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Counts 1 & 2 were predicated on the assumption that at the material times Joyce was a British subject. So for a British subject to assist the "King's enemies" at any time during the war would be treason(Count 1). Likewise for a British subject to take the nationality of the enemy(Count 2).

Evidence was adduced at trial which could lead to no other conclusion than that Joyce was born an American citizen, had legally adopted German citizenship, and had never been a British subject. Mr. Justice Tucker then quite properly directed the jury to find Joyce not-guilty on the first two counts.

Count 3 was the Crown's fall-back position, which hinged entirely on the passport. Without explicitly stating so, in essence the question was:- Notwithstanding that Joyce was NOT a British subject, did his possession of a British passport(albeit wrongfully-obtained) afford him the King's protection, and, if so, was there a corresponding duty of allegiance from Joyce, which, by assisting the "King's enemies" during the currency of the passport, amounted to Treason? The answer was an uncertain Yes.... RodCrosby 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Three crucial points

1. It is questionable that Joyce "lied" about his nationality in obtaining the passport. It is quite possible that Joyce genuinely belived he was British. Whether this alters his alleged culpability as a traitor is a moot point. There is no evidence that he was aware of his father's naturalization as an American in the 1890s, nor under English Law was he capable of giving evidence to this fact one way or the other, nor either to the circumstances of his own birth. Had that naturalization not taken place, Joyce would probably have had joint British-American citizenship at the time of his birth, and later probably joint Irish Free State-American citizenship.

2. There is no evidence that Joyce intended to use his passport beyond travelling to Germany in late August 1939 which, although quixotic, was a perfectly legal thing to do. He simply applied to renew his passport in order to travel, and war had not yet broken out. The noose was put around his neck because the passport was renewed for the standard 12 months, and before its expiry Joyce had started working for the Germans. At the trial, a bod from the Passport Office was produced to say that Joyce could have stipulated that the passport was to last for a much shorter period. That was the dubious point that hanged him. If he had had the foresight to ask that his passport was to last only for a week or two, he would have been legally untouchable. Personally, I've often wondered if anyone really ever has tried to renew a passport for less than 12 months. Also, is there a mechanism for the holder to annul a passport before its expiry?

3. It is notable that the 600 year-old law of treason had to be changed retroactively to put Joyce on the gallows. Prior to 1945, treason was considered the most heinous crime(an attracted the harshest penalties). The English sense of fair play demanded that it consequently required a higher standard of proof than common capital crimes. Either two separate acts of treason witnessed by the same person, or one act witnessed by two different people were required to secure a conviction. In 1945, in anticipation of Joyce's case, the Labour government quietly changed the law, then applied it retrospectively. Although millions had heard Joyce's voice over the airwaves in the latter part of the war, the only witness the Crown could produce was a retired copper who knew Joyce before the war, and had heard his voice on a date he couldn't remember, on a wavelength he couldn't recall, sometime in late 1939...

To sum-up: On the flimsiest evidence, a retroactive law was applied to hang a foreigner for possession of a document he was not entitled to posses, and only continued to possess due to an administrative oversight. Not the English legal system's finest hour, but let's not forget, it was under a Labour government... RodCrosby 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A counter summing up: There has never been any question that Joyce broadcast propaganda for the Nazis from beginning to the end of the war. He was a raging anti-semite before the war as well. He hoped to convince British people to give in to Hitler. He acquired a British passport when it suited him. He fully deserved to come unstuck on that one. Political Umpire http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

As the Guardian noted at the time, killing people is not the way to root out false opinions. The "crime" Joyce committed, in wrongfully obtaining a passport is usually punished by a small fine....RodCrosby 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So on that basis Joseph Goebbels should have been off the hook. Expression of opinion is one thing in peacetime, although we know what sort of freedom of speech would have existed in Britain had Joyce had his way and the Nazis prevailed. Try telling the victims of the Blitz that a person encouraging them to surrender, revelling in their misery and predicting their doom on a daily basis was just offering an opinion a la Comment is Free. If he didn't want to risk his life at the hands of the British he shouldn't have tried to assist the Nazis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Goebbels qute possibly would have been off the hook, had he lived. The substitute the Allies arraigned in his place, Hans Fritzsche, was one of the three defendants acquitted at Nuremberg... The question that you beg is that Joyce was in fact very POPULAR with his audience, much to the consternation of the British authorities! Also, a vast myth has arisen regarding the content of his broadcasts, most of the words attributed to him were never said. The man's last words, written in the death cell, minutes before the hangman came, are testament to his true beliefs "I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why." Could apply equally today, viz-a-viz Iraq and Afghanistan. RodCrosby 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced that WWII is in any way comparable to the misguided adventure in Iraq. Nor that that statement (whatever it means) represents Joyce's 'true beliefs'. Are you suggesting that he wasn't a Nazi supporter or raging anti-semite? Or a member of the fascist party? Or that he had some special insight into WWII that the 'sons of Britain' did not (possibly, he'd have known more about Jewish persecution in Germany than those in Britain would have . . .). How popular he was is open to question, but I doubt he was popular because his listeners concurred that Britain should abandon the struggle against Germany and join them, as Joyce was arguing. More likely they found him humourous. Perhaps that means his broadcasts did no harm. But those at the time might have had a better idea of that than people sixty odd years later.

Times have changed and the death penalty is no longer in force here. But it was then, for better or for worse, and there was also an offence then as now called treason. I have already said why I've no sympathy for Joyce being caught by his passport-of-convenience. Given that he was British when it suited him, he can't complain that he was British when it suited them either. If he simply didn't like the British he could have chosen other paths in life which didn't involve apologising for the Nazis. http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Three further points

1. Under the humane application of capital punishment in the UK, it was the convention that prisoners held for an inordinate time in the death cell, while appeals on novel points of law were being considered, almost invariably had their sentences commuted. AFAIK, Joyce was the only person in modern times to whom this mercy was not shown. He spent almost 4 months in the death cell, again a modern record.

2. The House of Lords decision to uphold the conviction was a split decision, with one Lord dissenting. Again, this would have indicated that commutation was in order. In fact, Joyce went to his death without even hearing their reasons. Following on from point 1, it was felt that any further delay in his execution would be unsustainable.

3. AFAIK, William Joyce was the only person in modern times to pay the supreme penalty for his words alone....

All in all, I would have thought an urgent case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. RodCrosby 12:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Only on the basis that the CCRC usually spends its days wasting public time and resources reviving long dead cases for the overworked Court of Appeal, fully in line with the usual modern fashion for thinking we know better than our forefathers. Those who had lived through the London Blitz would have a different view of some individual who thought it a good idea to run to Nazi Germany and spend six years taunting them and apologising for Hitler. Political Umpire http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

One final point

It's always intrigued me why the defence did not claim that Joyce had destroyed his passport on arrival in Germany, once it had served its purpose. After all, AFAIR, the passport itself was never found, and surely the wording of the document "the bearer of this document" means ipso facto that without the physical passport there can be no protection, and hence no allegiance. By analogy, in English law, physical destruction of one's last will and testament revokes the said will. RodCrosby 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just refreshed my memory. This was precisely the point raised in Lord Porter's dissenting opinion. Joyce's Appeal to the HoL RodCrosby 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Further information from the BBC

I was reading this earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4132578.stm.

It provides clarification on the reason that his wife was given clemency and also a photograph. I'm not clear on the correct way to source journalistic articles like this so I'm putting it in this discussion.

Joyce and Dev

The British hanged Joyce but spared de Valera on nationality. Both Americans guilty of treason. confused. Palx 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, by the British definition of "treason" every Irish person on earth is guilty because apparently it is treason, in the British imperialist mentality, for the Irish to want freedom from the oldest form of fascism, imperialism. The men and women of Easter 1916 are heroes to the Irish people, but treasonous to the British. And that says far more about the British and their fanatical culture with regard to the natives than anything else.

In fairness, that's one of the more disgusting and 'fanatical' opinions I've ever read on WP. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Joyce was American-born and not a British citizen. He had also taken up German citizenship. He was in fact no more guilty than any other functionary in Goebbels' ministry. He was probably executed because of his high profile in Britain, even though there was no logical basis for this. He may have also been seen as a source of embarrassment to the British Government due to his apparent "omniscience".--Jack Upland 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) perhaps the only real treason he committed was against Ireland, and the matter could have been settled by the Irish in the usual way, without the necessity of a trial. qv Denis Donaldson

He could not have committed treason against Ireland during the War, because Ireland - unique among English speaking nations - remained neutral during WWII. The Irish head of state signed the book of condolences at the German embassy on hearing of Hitler's death. Subsequent apologists suggest this was just being a stickler for protocol. They did not do so, however, for FDR's death.

The rant above about the British definition of "treason", even if not a poisonous load of tosh, doesn't apply to Joyce since he was a UNIONIST - who left Ireland because he was afraid of the IRA! ! ! ! ! !

http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

Criticism

I removed the "controversy" section because it merely repeated and extended the caveats pointed out already above, but it went further and basically amounted to uncited speculation about the legality of the conviction, which is POV. The paragraph at the end of the conviction section covers that fairly well. Daniel Quinlan 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is enirely legal for governments to kill people because of the things they have said.Bdell555 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There appear to be 2 independent articles on Lord Haw-Haw and William Joyce. Does anyone else feel they should be merged? --Bicycle repairman 06:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't other men broadcast as Lord Haw-Haw, besides Joyce? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did. But William Joyce is now synonomous with the title LHH Redzen 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay; it looks like the other Haw-Haws are already better covered at William Joyce. I don't care which is the redirect, but Lord Haw-Haw is probably the more common search term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I will say that I first searched for William Joyce by using the search term "Lord Haw-Haw". I believe a merged page makes more sense than the current divided entries. rudyardk

• Agree to merge and redirect with Lord Haw-Haw as the primary page. There could be a section heading on the identify of Lord Haw-Haw as a place to put the detailed info on Joyce and the less detailed info on the others.

• Merge Lord Haw Haw into William Joyce. GraemeLeggett 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. William Joyce is commonly known as "Lord Haw-Haw.--Jack Upland 08:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, the two are synonymous for most people. Jll 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, but as William Joyce, because the title did not follow him his whole career.Habsfan|t 03:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, under William Joyce, I think. It strikes me as better practice for an encyclopaedia to use a person's real name as the heading to their article, where possible. Pacey 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as William Joyce. A redirection from Lord Haw Haw (which is basically just a nickname) would be appropriate, since the article is essentially going to be a biographical piece of one person. A section focused upon others associated with the nickname is the best way to handle it. JXM 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with the proposed merge. Lord Haw-Haw was not Joyce alone; the fact that most people assume this in blissful ignorance is not a reason for Wikipedia to follow suit (in fact, it is a very good reason for not following suit). And Joyce's notariety, although it stems largely to his role as a propagandaist, is not limited to that. R v Joyce is still a mandatory part of English criminal law courses today for the legal principles that it raises, quite apart from the questions of nationality and treason. Legis 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as William Joyce. Wikipedia should reflect reality, and reality is that Joyce did the vast majority of the Lord Haw-Haw broadcasts and has been synonymous with Lord Haw-Haw for nearly 70 years. Include a note in the Joyce article stating that other English subjects did a few Lord Haw-Haw broadcasts, and link to names and articles as appropriate, but there's no need for a separate Lord Haw-Haw article. Vidor 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

controversy

Returning the controversy section. The fact that Joyce's execution was controversial is talked about in depth in all his biographies. The fact that his wife, who was guilty of the same charges was not also executed is part of the controversy. Therefore this does not constitute POV and does not justify the wholesale censorship of this section. However, I agree that citation is needed.

(Redzen 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

The controversy should be mentioned. If a citation is not available, it should still be mentioned.--Jack Upland 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel that the controversy statements are a bit woolly. The Crown could offer protection, via the protecting power, Switzerland. See my above points for real reasons for disquiet. RodCrosby 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

centenary of Joyce's birth 24 April, 2006

RodCrosby 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Friesack Camp

Hello, I have just added some detail on all the major G2 suspected "collaborators" with Nazi Germany at the Friesack Camp article. There is also a standalone article on John Codd- another collaborator.

Please add in any information you can, or if you think an article on Irish collaborators with the nazis deserves an article on its own away from the details concerning Friesack Camp please leave some notes on the discussion page etc.

I would like to do an article on Irland-Redaktion in Luxembourg and will perhaps make that standalone as there is a lot of information about it. Thanks for your attention. Fluffy999 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Audio link

Listen to his boozed-up final speech- 12 minutes. Not sure he "warns that the war would now leave Britain poor and barren" though, nor does he sign off with "Heil Hitler". Can someone else have a listen to confirm and change the article? thanks. Fluffy999 05:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While he didnt state "the war would now leave Britain poor and barren" he certainly implied it and he definitely uses the words "Heil Hitler" towards the end 87.113.26.196 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(because of a nasal drawl this sounded like: Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling). - great content. Well worth keeping. Sakes! Garrick92 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No certificate

Joyce falsely claimed to have been born in Ireland to get a British passport.

As he was born in America, he must have known that there was no birth certificate referring to

his alleged birth in Ireland.

Claim

William Joyce claimed to have acted for the British Army in his OTC application, made in England. He said that he had acted in an "irregular capacity" for the British Army. At

this point, he admitted that he was born in America. His mother was born in Lancashire, in England. Both parents renounced British citizenship when they acquired American citizenship.

Assassination attempt in early life?

From 'Early Life': "Following a failed assassination attempt in 1921 (which only failed due to the 16-year old Joyce taking a different route home from school) he left for England where he would briefly attend King's College School, Wimbledon, followed two years later by his family." Zuh? What assassination attempt? Who was he trying to kill at that age? Or who was trying to kill him at that age? Why? What is this? 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Joyce's education

After the so-called assassination attempt in 1921 his biography claims that he spent a brief time as a pupil at King's College School, Wimbledon. I am currently writing something about the school so was interested in this reference.

I can find no reference at all in the school archives concerning Joyce as his name is absent from any lists relating to the period in question and believe the claim is in error. Does anyone have any proof to back up the information on the present Wikepedia site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.163.206 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)