Civil War Executions

Fenian

Just browsing through Wikipedia and found this article.

There was a discussion about what side you would of fought on during the Civil War a few months ago on this forum, I said the Republican side, the majority said the Staters side. Would ye of wanted to be part of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executions_during_the_Irish_Civil_War

Mick86

Fenian wrote:

Would ye of wanted to be part of this?

A nasty but necessary job. Nobody from the republican side has any cause for complaint. Half a dozen IRA men were executed during WW2 as well.

Mad Finn

Nobody emerges from that with any credit. It was a brutal, savage and hugely damaging war that was totally unnecessary but perhaps inevitable, given that both 'armies' had little political control over them.

To this day the IRA insists that it is independent of any political party, hence Sinn Fein going through the motions during the peace process of 'asking the IRA' to agree to such things as ceasefires, acts of decommissioning, recognition of elections etc etc. All bull**** of course, but every organisation has its little rituals that it thinks so important.

Blame for the Civil War has to lie firmly, fairly and squarely with De Valera and what became Fianna Fail. It was they who resisted in arms the decision democratically taken by the democratically elected (if secessionist) Dail Eireann and further endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people.

De Valera promised to 'wade knee deep through Irish blood' before he would accept such a document and proceeded to do just that. Indulged in a blood bath and then accepted the treaty.

Nobody won the Civil War. The bitterness still exists. Tralee, for example, is now and always was a Provo **** hole largely because of the bitterness left over from the fighting in kerry, in particular the Ballyseedy massacre. Which of course was a reprisal for the Knocknagoshel atrocity.

One note of caution about the Wikipedia article. It paints Kevin O'Higgins in a very black light, saying that he was most supportive of the reprisals policy. That is very much a Republican prejudice. There is evidence that he was most reluctant to go down that route. Certainly he favoured the death penalty for capital murder of policemen and public servants. But that was the price for having the Garda as an unarmed body in contast to the RIC.

cushtac

Mad Finn wrote:

De Valera promised to 'wade knee deep through Irish blood' before he would accept such a document and proceeded to do just that. Indulged in a blood bath and then accepted the treaty.

DeValera was not part of the Republican leadership during the Civil War, nor did he have any influence over their decisions. Those men would have opposed the treaty regardless of DeValera's views.

rasper

fault definitely fell on all sides, but dev can't be blamed on too much as the likes of Lynch and Deasey really didn't pay much heed to him.
Didn't most ex-colonies have a power struggle after independence, nature of the beast i suppose

Fenian

Nobody from the republican side has any cause for complaint

Except the families and friends of the men butchered by the Staters. If it was the British who perpetrated these atrotices against Republicans would you have the same heartless attitude?

It was they who resisted in arms the decision democratically taken by the democratically elected (if secessionist) Dail Eireann and further endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people.

So what about the 1919 Declaration of Indepenence? So do we forget about the first Dail which was a democratically elected body?
The Free State Treaty only subverted the already established, and democratically elected government of the Irish Republic.
The Republicans during the Civil War were not resisting any treaty, they were defending in arms the already established Republic, against what they percieved as sell-outs and traitors.

De Valera promised to 'wade knee deep through Irish blood' before he would accept such a document and proceeded to do just that. Indulged in a blood bath and then accepted the treaty.

Couldn't agree with you more on that one, Dev used the IRA terribly to achieve his own political asperations.

The bitterness still exists. Tralee, for example, is now and always was a Provo **** hole largely because of the bitterness left over from the fighting in kerry

My sister went to college in Tralee and I have spent many nights out there. She would take great offence (as would many others) by you calling Tralee a ****hole, which it certainly is not.

cushtac

Fenian wrote:

Couldn't agree with you more on that one, Dev used the IRA terribly to achieve his own political asperations.

So are you saying that the Republican leadership wouldn't have occupied the Four Courts if DeValera hadn't spoken out against the Treaty?

Mick86

Fenian wrote:

Except the families and friends of the men butchered by the Staters.

And what about those murdered by republicans?

Fenian wrote:

If it was the British who perpetrated these atrotices against Republicans would you have the same heartless attitude?

Yes.

FiSe

Just few things, I don't want to speculate who killed whom or who did what, civil war is the worst conflict imaginable and show me who threw this stone like the first... No one is without black mark, that's for sure, but if you looking at it, generally, pro-treaty, free state, Collins' forces, you choose the name, were official forces of Irish Free State and if you were against, on anti-treaty side, than OK, but with all consequencies. That's my view and I might be wrong and as I said earlier, black stain is on all of them...

And just one more thing, I, as a foringer, always wonder how easy is to blame somebody else for everything what happened in this country... Bad weather, let's blame Brits, or Englishmen, I should say, high petrol prices, let's blame Americans, high house prices, let's blame global economy, too many deaths on Irish roads, let's blame "eastern europians"...
Did you get my point?

luckat

The British caused the bad weather? Now that I didn't know.

Bastards.

Mick86

FiSe wrote:

Just few things, I don't want to speculate who killed whom or who did what, civil war is the worst conflict imaginable and show me who threw this stone like the first... No one is without black mark, that's for sure, but if you looking at it, generally, pro-treaty, free state, Collins' forces, you choose the name, were official forces of Irish Free State and if you were against, on anti-treaty side, than OK, but with all consequencies. That's my view and I might be wrong and as I said earlier, black stain is on all of them...

And just one more thing, I, as a foringer, always wonder how easy is to blame somebody else for everything what happened in this country... Bad weather, let's blame Brits, or Englishmen, I should say, high petrol prices, let's blame Americans, high house prices, let's blame global economy, too many deaths on Irish roads, let's blame "eastern europians"...
Did you get my point?

No. All that has what to do with the Civil War?

Shutuplaura

The thing about the civil war executions that made them a particularly unsavoury epsiode is that so many of them occured without sanction. Many of them had as much to do with local rivalry as anything else and could be classes as judicial murders. Erskine Childers is a perfect example - as far as I'm aware he was taken out and shot while he still had an appeal pending because the government wanted rid of a particularly articulate enemy spokesman. He was also hated because he was an Englishman.

Given the power of army commanders and the lawlessness of the army (it mutinied a year later) this was a very easy thing for semi official executions to happen. Kev Higgans probably shouldn't be blamed completely but by talking up such a strong line he surely helped create the atmosphere where such things happened.

Incidentially, the C na G government also destroyed most of the documents related to the executions before leaving office to clear out the cupboard.

Mad Finn

Fenian wrote:

So what about the 1919 Declaration of Indepenence? So do we forget about the first Dail which was a democratically elected body?
The Free State Treaty only subverted the already established, and democratically elected government of the Irish Republic.

And the Irish delegation at the Treaty talks was a fair representation of that democratically elected body. The same democratically elected body which ratified democratically (albeit narrowly but hey that's democracy for you) the treaty after it was debated. Those who opposed the treaty militarily were undemocratic, trigger happy, power-grabbing gangsters.

Fenian wrote:

The Republicans during the Civil War were not resisting any treaty, they were defending in arms the already established Republic, against what they percieved as sell-outs and traitors.

Then they should have obeyed the decisions, democratically arrived at, of the government and parliament of the republic. Especially the ones they didn't like. That's the true mark of a democrat. Work to change them certainly, but taking up arms against unarmed policemen, rival TDs, people you didn't like? No.

Fenian wrote:

My sister went to college in Tralee and I have spent many nights out there. She would take great offence (as would many others) by you calling Tralee a ****hole, which it certainly is not.

I know Tralee very well and it is a dung-heap. I well remember the travel guide book which said (accurately) that Tralee's only saving grace was the bus to Dingle.

And as for its republican bent: who's its TD? Brendan 'Gun runner' Ferris. It has also been represented by the McEllistrim family, one scion of which was still campaigning in the 1980s on the strength of bitterness of the Ballyseedy massacre. And of course its longest standing TD was Dan Spring, father of Dick, who was astute enough to keep the hard-core republican vote on side. Especially with his campaign for clemency for the IRA leader Kerins who was executed for killing a Garda during the 40s.

And one of the leading GAA clubs in Tralee is named after him. Kerins-O'Rahillys.

Could you imagine a soccer team naming itself after the Westies? The South Dublin Suggs perhaps? I don't think so.

But the chief town of the leading county in GAA has no problem naming one of its clubs after a convicted killer of an unarmed servant of the state.

Provo sh1t-hole? You bet it is.

TerrorFirmer

There was never a "power struggle" as such, the republicans never had the slightest hope of defeating free state forces which were infinitely better armed and equiped then their enemies and had military aid from britain.

The Civil war was essentitally pointless and acheived very little apart from alot of split blood.

Excellent link, by the way. Interesting reading.

Shutuplaura

The IRA heavily outnumbered the Free state in its early stages. Several writer such a Francis Stuart and Ernie O' Mally state that they lacked the apetite for a real fight which is what forced them to surrender the initative before the war even began.

I also think its a bit harsh calling them gangsters. Misguided would be a fairer term surely. Its easy to see 20/20 with hindsight but if you've just come through a war against the old enemy and nearly won then it's going to be a hard thing to stop. Thats a point in Ken Loachs otherwise mediocre film that it made well, albiet with some heavy handed drama.

But anyway, what the hell do I know, I think that Tralee is the Jewel of North Kerry

TerrorFirmer

Shutuplaura wrote:

The IRA heavily outnumbered the Free state in its early stages. Several writer such a Francis Stuart and Ernie O' Mally state that they lacked the apetite for a real fight which is what forced them to surrender the initative before the war even began.

Perhaps, but in most cases and certainly in this case numbers did not make for a decisive outcome. The Free state had artillery, armour and even the British Navy to aid them in landings - according to that link, the Republicans had a mere 3 captured armoured cars. They were doomed to guerilla war from the onset, and obviously enough such a war conducted as such would never lead to victory.

I'm sure with a bit more strategic co-ordination limited gains might have been made but ultimately I think with or without the morale for a fight the republicans could never have actually defeated the free state in any sense of the word.

Fenian

power-grabbing gangsters.

Do you honestly believe Tom Barry and Ernie O'Malley were gangsters? Come on for God's sake, have you read either of their books?
Even Richard Mullcahy showed dignity and respect to Tom Barry while he was imprisoned during the Civil War, saving him from a vicious beating. Yet you dare call the man a gangster.

The Free state had artillery, armour and even the British Navy to aid them in landings

Thats true, but the main reason the Rebpublicans stood down was because of informers. Tanks and artillary they could deal with but the Staters raiding their safe houses and arms caches was the biggest problem.
You can't fight a guerilla war without a support base, and if your safe houses and arm caches are no longer safe you can't effecttively wage war. So moral began to waver and inevitably the will to fight ceased to exist.

Shutuplaura

Can I say that I really have to agree witht the previous post re the comment over power hungry gangsters.

I also think language like that is way too emotive to be used in any discussion forum about history. Loaded phrases like that act as a barrier to further discussion (see my post on 1916 and conscription which was turned from a fairly reasonable question about cause and effect into a row about something very different with no light been shed on either) and it usually betrays a half understanding of the past.

Mad Finn

I am not a doctrinaire, or even an instinctive socialist, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with somebody who is one or both of those things when they hit the nail on the head. And Eamon McCann (who is both of those things) got it absolutely right in his book written about 30 years ago, War and an Irish Town. The phrase made such an impact on me that I can remember it almost verbatim even though I haven't read the book for years.

'Essentially, objectively the Irish Civil War was a faction fight between a bunch of gombeen men who wanted to retain a middle man's role for British commercial interests in Ireland and a bunch of emergent capitalists who wanted the profits accruing from those economic interests themselves. Between the grubbers and the grabbers.'

OK I'm not 100 per cent accurate but it's near enough. Check it out if you can get your hands on it.

Sure, there were some socialists (represented in the Wind that Shakes the Barley by the Irish Citizen Army character) who thought that a brave new dawn of workers owning the local creamery and collective farm was at hand, and they even set up a few 'soviets' in some rural areas, but they were very quickly disabused of this notion by both sides in the Civil War.

What became Fianna Fail was led by a bunch of opportunists who decided to exploit the anarchy that always accompanies war to grab power for themselves. They turned their guns, not against the forces of the crown but the forces of the newly independent state. It is to this country's great credit that the new state did not back down and fought those opportunist 'grabbers' to defeat.

The proof of the pudding of the Irish state, now the republic, is the durability of its democratic institutions. Our police are unarmed thanks primarily to Kevin O'Higgins. Elections are regularly held and the results always respected, except by the anti-treaty grabbers in the 1920s. We can agree or disagree on whether our welfare benefits are generous enough but as a struggling neutral independent state we could at least feed our people which we were not able to do when we were an integral part of the home countries of the world's most powerful empire.

It was the pro treaty side that established the behavioural boundaries of the Free State in the 1920s, putting down armed undemocratic revolt and insisting that their opponents turn to the ballot box instead of the rifle. When Fianna Fail won the election in 1932, Cumann na nGaedhal handed over power without a whimper, as was only right and proper. But many Fianna Fail deputies, judging the likely behaviour of the outgoing government by their own low standards, came to the Dail with pistols in their pockets just in case the election results were not honoured. They need have had no fear.

Shutuplaura

Ah your always banging on about Kevin O'Higgins!

But seriously, such sentiments surely don't belong here i feel. I mean, its not a political forum and every post about Irish history seems to degenerate into a political rant.

I mean a lecturer once refered to Francis I as an asshole in class but apart from that I've never come accross stuff like this except in the Political discussion society.

Anyway, O' Higgins refered to the democratic programme of the First Dail as 'mostly poetry' which illustrates that he wasn't above the grubbyness of post war Irish politics. And the FF (I actually hate the party by the way but I always seem to be defending them) deputues who carried guns into the parliment did so to protect themselves in case of an attempted Coup by the Army or Cna G or whoever. They were only covering their asses just like Cns G when it ordered the burning of all those documents related to the Civil War.

O'Duffy (friend of democracy) was more important to the formation of the Guards that O Higgins as far as i'm aware but as I dislike all three I haven't looked to deeply into it so I'll defer to you on that.

Incidentially, there was a theory floating around after O' Higgins death that it was actually masterminded by Richard Mulcahy because he knew that O'Higgins would never let him back into the cabinet - Its probably bollocks but shows the twisted nature of politics at the time.