1916, war of independance and civil war

Balmed Out

Had a look at the recent 1916 thread and I wanted to see peoples views on its importance. From what I know it was a complete mess. It was cancelled for most of the country and even in Dublin plenty of people didnt know what was happening. Yet it seems to get far more publicity / glory in Ireland then the war of independance.
So the question is why?
Is it because it happened in Dublin and dublin had a peripheral role in the war of independance, is it because of the bitterness created by the civil war?

claire h

Far more about the civil war, I think. It's very difficult to celebrate the war of independence because it wasn't exactly 'won' so much as ended with a compromise - a compromise that led to the civil war and a whole lot of bitterness that permeated political life long after it was over, especially because some of the same figures stayed in politics for ages and ages.

I also think that it's a lot easier to glorify the doomed rebellion of 1916, which was designed to be symbolic, which was obviously military and sort of 'noble', which produced martyrs lost to British oppression and formal executions, rather than the guerilla warfare and terrorist tactics adopted in the war of independence, which are the sort of thing we now like to think of as the exclusive domain of the North and other 'troubled areas'.

Balmed Out

I dont think thats necessarily true though. I dont believe that the easter rising was designed to be symbolic at all it was designed to take advantage of world war 1 and Britains over stretched military, after that war ended a compromised victory was all that could really be hoped for.
As for terrorism charges I think a look at casualty figures will show a far higher percentage of civilian dead in the easter rising.
I cant see how the easter rising can be considered more noble given the lack of an electoral mandate at the time as opposed again to the civil war which was undertaken by the authority of a majority of the elected representatives.
As for martyrs there were 15 executed including those arrested outside of dublin for the rising as opposed to 25 during the war of independance. Im pretty sure that the free state executed far more (70 - 80) during the civil war but thats not here nor there.

claire h

Designed to be symbolic in the way that it was carried out (certainly I take your point that it was counting on that whole 'England's difficulty, Ireland's opportunity' thing) - going through with it despite the lack of arms and troops? Hardly any of the leaders had any real military experience, they had an antiquated notion of honour - that's what I mean by nobility I suppose. (Whereas you're really talking about legitimacy, in terms of being endorsed by elected representatives.) The events of 1916 lend themselves to mythologising and glorifying more than what came later, or that's how I'd see it, anyway.

Logically, yes, the numbers killed should be what people consider - but how people are killed, and under what circumstances, and how it's portrayed, is really what determines how an event is perceived. Like you say, the Free State did more than its fair share of killing - that's what people don't want to remember in any official way. On the other hand, the British government stepping in to execute a bunch of people associated with the Rising... from a nationalistic/republican perspective, which is the perspective that so much Irish history is filtered through, that's something that can be used as an example of how dreadful the Brits were, how justified any violence against them was, etc.

Balmed Out

Nope i still dont see it.
1916
Through bocthed orders / political back stabbing and general poor comunication the rising is aborted in most of the country.
It started out as a military undertaking but fair enough when german guns didnt materialise i suppose they continued just to make a point.
Doing this contributed to hundreds of civilian dead.
Noble, im not sure. REeckon if it were looked at through a neutral observer at the time they would have said foolish.

War of Independance
Had a mandate from the people.
Largely fought (on the ira side anyway) with the intention of always minimising civilan casualties.
Fought using intelligent and admirable tactics. Tom barrys guerilla days in ireland was used as a coursebook to train officers in both america and england
Fought over a far more prolongued period.

Cant help think it was far more noble. Find the Easter rising was done so badly it shouldnt be celebrated so much. Do u not think the war of independance should be given far more prestige then the easter rising? I understand its immediate aftermath (the civil war) has detracted from it but in this day and age should we not have moved past it.

claire h

Well, the point you initially raised was why the Rising *does* have more prestige than the war of independence, rather than which *should* have more. I'm not disagreeing with your view of events, just pointing out that when looking at these things, how they're perceived and interpreted tends to have a greater impact than the facts and figures of civilian deaths and all the rest.

Of course we *should* have moved past it, but that doesn't mean people have - though I think the fact that traditionally people hadn't moved past it (rather than people still 'holding a grudge' now) is probably more to do with it at this point. Sure you can look at the evidence for yourself, and assess the situation for yourself, but a) lots of people won't bother, b) the way history is taught in schools still tends to emphasise 1916 and c) the Rising is something that's marked ceremonially every year at Easter, whereas I don't think there's a specific date/occasion that suggests that people should be remembering the war of independence (could be wrong on this - is there?). That sort of stuff affects how people view history, not just the historical evidence.

Balmed Out

Surely the signing of the treaty and so the first step towards our nation as we know it deserves far more to be a day of national celebration then yet another failed uprising. I think that had the rising taken place elsewhere then Dublin then this would be the case. As for our school history books (and of other countries) they do tend to often be scewed and slanted by their authors. The war of independance is usually written as a footnote to the easter rising which is the wrong way around and indeed the sohodobeg ambush is usually given as its beginning when it wasnt really. School books tend to dictate how events are "perceived and interpreted" 80 90 years, that doesnt make it correct.
So then given that there arent any civil war survivors around anymore isnt it about time that the war of independance is given prominence in our history books and that the events and attrocities of the civil war are taught more?

FiSe

I don't know about nation who would be proud of its fight against itself /USA hear you say/. Maybe this is the reason, shame and selective memory? Perhaps?
It's always easier to point at "common" enemy /1916-1921/ than trying to find explanation for meaningles tribalistic killing. I think

conchubhar1

connoly is admired by the masses
so is pearse
the executions- first of the major turning points towards freedom

some of the reasons its ledgendary

Balmed Out

obviously im not saying we should celebrate the civil war rather the war of independance. As for pearse and connolly they wouldnt be celebrated figures on a national scale to the extent of someone like michael collins. id reckon tom barry would be a more celebrated figure in cork at least then either of them.

themont85

1916 is primarily remembered because it kicked of the subsequent events through the martyrs. Essentially it re-awakened millitant Irish nationalism through the rising through every centuary which combined with later on diplomatic measures brought us independence. As we had always been the uncomfortable sibling to our larger one Britain oure sense of identity was mixed up(World War 1 and Home Rule show this) and in the eyes of the leaders it would wakw us up to what the majority really wanted. Also the fact that it was a close quaters combat in an urban area which left a visable mark on the main population centre rather than just isolated guerilla fighting in the countryside. Thats its explicit importance and why it is highly revered I reckon.

Another major reson which I think Gareth Fitzgearld wrote was the whole issue of Britain subsidising Ireland. Ireland would have benefited following the war from investment and huge money running the country. The conservative politition R Churchill I think it is had said they would 'kill home rule with kindness'(ie more money) at the start of the 20th centuary and we were getting more though home rule wishing continued. WW1 and the Unionists skuppered Home Rule and this would likely have continued until the 20s where upon there is a major chance that cries for more independence would have drowned out by the cost of keeping such a state afloat. In a number of ways the rising forced our hands to want independence.

brianthebard

Balmed Out wrote: »

Surely the signing of the treaty and so the first step towards our nation as we know it deserves far more to be a day of national celebration then yet another failed uprising. I think that had the rising taken place elsewhere then Dublin then this would be the case. As for our school history books (and of other countries) they do tend to often be scewed and slanted by their authors. The war of independance is usually written as a footnote to the easter rising which is the wrong way around and indeed the sohodobeg ambush is usually given as its beginning when it wasnt really. School books tend to dictate how events are "perceived and interpreted" 80 90 years, that doesnt make it correct.
So then given that there arent any civil war survivors around anymore isnt it about time that the war of independance is given prominence in our history books and that the events and attrocities of the civil war are taught more?

I think Claire h is right in saying the Easter rising is perceived as symbolic, even though I don't think it was intended that way. In terms of how people remember the three events, the rising would be seen as the match that lit the flame for the war of independance, which as already pointed out ended in compromise and then civil war. So it may be that the war of independance is seen to have betrayed or not lived up to the expectations of the "martyrs" who fought in the easter rising. (All of which really only applies if one is of quite a nationalistic slant, otherwise one could probably see the war of independance as more significant).

kreuzberger

conchubhar1 wrote: »

connoly is admired by the masses
so is pearse
the executions- first of the major turning points towards freedom

some of the reasons its ledgendary

I should have thought the reason was obvious , the setting out very clearly of the Irish nations inalienable right to national sovereignty in a clear and concise manner juxtaposed against a British politic , embraced by the constitutional nationalist tradition , that no such right existed in any other form than an aspiration subject to the whims of westminster and a British constitution . In other words a dignified national outlook verus a craven one , with the dignified stance being embraced by the people over the craven one . Thereby embodying their own dignity . Many many more wished theyd participated in 1916 than actually did . Without 1916 the notion of national sovereignty wouldnt even exist , a British constitution would most likely still be at the heart of all Irish political affairs in a very open manner .
A very dignified alternative to the mess Irish politics and national life were in at the time that radicalised political attitudes by insisting upon national sovereignty as our right as opposed to a dream we were afraid to discuss openly , much less demand.

kreuzberger

brianthebard wrote: »

I think Claire h is right in saying the Easter rising is perceived as symbolic, even though I don't think it was intended that way. In terms of how people remember the three events, the rising would be seen as the match that lit the flame for the war of independance, which as already pointed out ended in compromise and then civil war. So it may be that the war of independance is seen to have betrayed or not lived up to the expectations of the "martyrs" who fought in the easter rising. (All of which really only applies if one is of quite a nationalistic slant, otherwise one could probably see the war of independance as more significant).

i think it would be more appropriate to refer to the 1919-21 period as a war for independence , as it wasnt acheived

McArmalite

kreuzberger wrote: »

i think it would be more appropriate to refer to the 1919-21 period as a war for independence , as it wasnt acheived

Precisely, the Treaty was a bloody joke, those who signed it should have been charged with treason when they brought it back from London. Imagine as part of the conditions of the treaty, the free state had to pay off part of britain's national debt :mad: Ofcourse there also was the Land Annuities, repayment of british moneys invested in the railways, harbours etc payment for damage to government property in both Ireland and Britain, By 1932 these fanciful payments were still taking up about 7 per cent of the revenue of the free state - and people wonder why Ireland was economically underdeveloped ? ? ?. Also there was a curious claim for the cost of resettling ‘refugees’: this turned out to be the expenses incurred in relocating informers who had been unmasked - the British declined to supply any names :rolleyes:.

As I said, the treaty was a bloody joke. How could the 26 county state be 'free' when it's first actions were to attack the IRA at the behest of britian:mad:. The worst crime in it all, was to abandon the nationalists in the 6 counties who were the most vulnerable to the british army and unionist mobs to murder and pillage and openly commit pogroms against the nationalists in Belfast, Derry etc. Meanwhile, the free state was shelling their former comrades and life long friends with british supplied cannons machine guns etc on the IRA in the Four Courts.

kreuzberger

Essentially what occured was the partitioned type of Home Rule envisaged by the British being forced upon the Irish people at the point of a British gun , in essence a British inspired and driven counter revolution . Constitutional nationalism of the Redmondite variety had been driven from public life post 1916 . The counter revolution saw it very firmly re-established as a political practice with republicanism and democracy being driven off the scen by undemocratic methods , as Cosgrave pointed out himself things had gone too far and some of the old order was being restored . Things like sovereignty being invested in the people and Democratic programmes were simply too much for the native bourgouisie to handle , much less the British . It had to be stopped .
. The Irish people were also forced under those terms to adopt a British framed constitution without it even being put to a vote . At every level democracy was thrown out the window by militarism , in order to suppress democracy .

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

Precisely, the Treaty was a bloody joke, those who signed it should have been charged with treason when they brought it back from London. Imagine as part of the conditions of the treaty, the free state had to pay off part of britain's national debt :mad: Ofcourse there also was the Land Annuities, repayment of british moneys invested in the railways, harbours etc payment for damage to government property in both Ireland and Britain, By 1932 these fanciful payments were still taking up about 7 per cent of the revenue of the free state - and people wonder why Ireland was economically underdeveloped ? ? ?. Also there was a curious claim for the cost of resettling ‘refugees’: this turned out to be the expenses incurred in relocating informers who had been unmasked - the British declined to supply any names :rolleyes:.

As I said, the treaty was a bloody joke. How could the 26 county state be 'free' when it's first actions were to attack the IRA at the behest of britian:mad:. The worst crime in it all, was to abandon the nationalists in the 6 counties who were the most vulnerable to the british army and unionist mobs to murder and pillage and openly commit pogroms against the nationalists in Belfast, Derry etc. Meanwhile, the free state was shelling their former comrades and life long friends with british supplied cannons machine guns etc on the IRA in the Four Courts.

Don't argue your pints here, but, jaysus man, why do you have to ruin every thread with such a load of hate in every of your posts?
World isn't black and white and never was, just calm down, take a deep breath and count to 20 before posting, please... :cool:

Riddle101

The Importance of 1916:
Stategically it was a failure, but politicalally it was a huge success, after the executions people drifted further and further away from Home Rule and closer to Nationalism. People were outraged at the British response and upon that led to the War for Independece.

Importance of WOI:
Although we didn't get an Independant Ireland until the 1940's, Ireland got more freedom then it had prevously(Even if Home Rule had been brought out)

Importance of Civil War:
Not really important but it did lead to the formation of the Free State Army, before then the IRA were the ones fighting and they worked independantly from the Government

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Don't argue your pints here, but, jaysus man, why do you have to ruin every thread with such a load of hate in every of your posts?
World isn't black and white and never was, just calm down, take a deep breath and count to 20 before posting, please... :cool:

So you don't like my posts Just my view of the wonderful little world that partition created, I cannot see why people like yourself like to pretend that it was the 'beginning of Irish freeedom' - when clearly it wasn't.

Riddle101

McArmalite wrote: »

Precisely, the Treaty was a bloody joke, those who signed it should have been charged with treason when they brought it back from London. Imagine as part of the conditions of the treaty, the free state had to pay off part of britain's national debt :mad: Ofcourse there also was the Land Annuities, repayment of british moneys invested in the railways, harbours etc payment for damage to government property in both Ireland and Britain, By 1932 these fanciful payments were still taking up about 7 per cent of the revenue of the free state - and people wonder why Ireland was economically underdeveloped ? ? ?. Also there was a curious claim for the cost of resettling ‘refugees’: this turned out to be the expenses incurred in relocating informers who had been unmasked - the British declined to supply any names :rolleyes:.

As I said, the treaty was a bloody joke. How could the 26 county state be 'free' when it's first actions were to attack the IRA at the behest of britian:mad:. The worst crime in it all, was to abandon the nationalists in the 6 counties who were the most vulnerable to the british army and unionist mobs to murder and pillage and openly commit pogroms against the nationalists in Belfast, Derry etc. Meanwhile, the free state was shelling their former comrades and life long friends with british supplied cannons machine guns etc on the IRA in the Four Courts.

So you think the Treaty was a joke aye, so what do you think we should have done. Refuse the Treaty and allow the Conservative Government in England to come to power and then the War would continue, therefore we would lose the war because
(1)We had no weapons to defend with

(2)Micheal Collins was a known figure now so he was no longer the man without a face, he wouldn't have gotten out of England if he had rejected it and even so he wouldn't be able to go back to his old ways

(3)The country had no where to run or hide, England only used the freaken Black and Tans and the Auxilaries, imagine what would have happened if England sent in the proper Army to deal with us, we'd lose everything and we'd be like Scotland now

(4)We'd never have gotten the Free State that eventually led to the an independant Ireland because DeValera would almost certainly have been Executed and therfore he wouldn't be around to dismantle the Treaty or achive Independence.

Lads i'm not saying i'm right but if you think about it, we got a better deal then we could hope for, stop this freaken hardline Republican bulls**t and start seeing what refusing the Treaty would have done

kreuzberger

Riddle101 wrote: »

So you think the Treaty was a joke aye,

personally I regard it as a crime against our nation as opposed to a joke . A mockery perhaps .

so what do you think we should have done. Refuse the Treaty and allow the Conservative Government in England to come to power and then the War would continue, therefore we would lose the war because
(1)We had no weapons to defend with

there was plenty of gear came out of the woodwork post 1921

(2)Micheal Collins was a known figure now so he was no longer the man without a face, he wouldn't have gotten out of England if he had rejected it and even so he wouldn't be able to go back to his old ways

jaysus , the emerald pimpernell . British morale was effectively broken in the rural hinterlands . Michael collins played no part whatsoever in this war effort . It would have continued against an already demoralised enemey that didnt want to be there .

(3)The country had no where to run or hide, England only used the freaken Black and Tans and the Auxilaries, imagine what would have happened if England sent in the proper Army to deal with us, we'd lose everything and we'd be like Scotland now

This is absolute nonsense Im afraid . Ireland was fully garrisoned by tens of thousands of regular troops who very much were used on a daily basis in counter insurgent activities and in large scale manouvres . The Black and Tans and Auxiliaries were police auxiliaries , carrying out the duties of the already demoralised and decimated RIC .
The proper army were sent into west cork to deal with Tom Barrys flying column , which they outnumbered many times over , successfuly encircled by sheer force of nyumbers and were physically beaten in a stand up engagement at Crossbarry . They were thoroughly routed . This caused British morale to plummet . The officer in charge of all British troops in Ireland wasked to give a ful assessment of the military situation in Ireland to the British cbinet . His stark replywas that British morale had been broken and that in his opinion British troops should not be asked to remain in Ireland one more winter . It was on receiving this advice that the British cabinet asked for a truce .

(4)We'd never have gotten the Free State that eventually led to the an independant Ireland because DeValera would almost certainly have been Executed and therfore he wouldn't be around to dismantle the Treaty or achive Independence.

a sizable chunk of our national territory is still occupied by Britian , therefore Ireland isnt independent . Its national sovereignty is still violated .

As for various figues , so what ? Someone else would have , and probably done an even better job .

Lads i'm not saying i'm right but if you think about it, we got a better deal then we could hope for,

untrue . We got precisely what Britian was offering prior to 1914 , partitioned home rule . We got this from an enemy whose will to fight on had been broken by guerilla attacks and boycott of their rule and their forces by the general population . Our plenipotentiaries simply made a complete bollix of negotitations , followed by elements of our political society behaving in the most undemocratic manner in order to subvert national sovereignty and democracy in their rush for personal power .

stop this freaken hardline Republican bulls**t and start seeing what refusing the Treaty would have done

refusing to have democracy and sovereignty subverted and standing by our rights as a nation would have seen democracy and national sovereignty defended , put at the heart of our political system and spared us decades of conflcit in a still unresolved conflict in our country.

Erin Go Brath

Riddle101 wrote: »

Lads i'm not saying i'm right but if you think about it, we got a better deal then we could hope for, stop this freaken hardline Republican bulls**t and start seeing what refusing the Treaty would have done

We can at best only guess what refusing the treaty would have done. Would it be any worse than the civil war which tore this country asunder? Would it be worse than several decades of unrest in the newly partitioned 6 county statelet?

Lets not equate rejection of the treaty with 'freaken hardline Republican bullsh**t' as you put it. By the same token you could argue that agreeing with the treaty equates with snivelling servitude and moral cowardice.

I would disagree with your assertion that we got a better deal than we could have hoped for. We should have played hardball with Britain during negotitaitons and see what transpired before deciding upon something that split Ireland down the middle.

FiSe

I don't know here, we don't know, what would happen if... so we can only argue and throwing "abuses" on each other, because we know what happened.
In my opinion, civil war, which /let's face it, is a shamefull black stain on the face of the nation/ followed after the treaty episode and civil war /no trouble no unrest/ up the Northside is nothing in comparshion what would be if the treaty would be ejected.
I think that we are talking about full scale /civil/ war -Spanish type, with heavy involvment of UK forces and massive bodycount on both, or god only knows how many, sides lasting for years. As I said my opinion.

So you don't like my posts Just my view of the wonderful little world that partition created, I cannot see why people like yourself like to pretend that it was the 'beginning of Irish freeedom' - when clearly it wasn't.

I don't like the style of your posts. You know your stuff, no irony here, but you're writing your personal opinions as if they were universal truth.
The world is big enough and focusing your mind solely on one tiny island in the middle of nowhere without seeing "the bigger picture" doesn't do any good.
I'm quite happy to say that I have no problems with the borders, or "Irish freedom" if there's such a thing, after all they are only thick line on the map. But I have a problems with partitions created in the brain...
I think, that this nation needs to be more focused on the present and the future, rather then fighting 80yrs old battles over and over again being led by 3rd class leaders. Anyway getting off topic here, sorry :eek:

Riddle101

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

We can at best only guess what refusing the treaty would have done. Would it be any worse than the civil war which tore this country asunder? Would it be worse than several decades of unrest in the newly partitioned 6 county statelet?

Lets not equate rejection of the treaty with 'freaken hardline Republican bullsh**t' as you put it. By the same token you could argue that agreeing with the treaty equates with snivelling servitude and moral cowardice.

I would disagree with your assertion that we got a better deal than we could have hoped for. We should have played hardball with Britain during negotitaitons and see what transpired before deciding upon something that split Ireland down the middle.

How could we play hardball, we were blackmailed into the accepting, Lloyd George made it pretty clear to both De Valera and the Irish Delecates that we would not get External Assocation and when the delecates would not except anything other then that he threated war, becaus e he had no choice the British Elections were coming up and he was beginning to lose favour with the public over the WOI, the Conservative party would have come to power and they would never except also they would have went back to war qwith Ireland and we would have lost because we had no weapons and had huge loses, that why DeValera seeked Treaty Negotiations because with Britain and since the British were coming off as the bad side they agreed. My point is we played their game and they called us bluff.


To Kreuzberger

personally I regard it as a crime against our nation as opposed to a joke . A mockery perhaps

.

I agree that the Treaty was a crime we were screwed by Lloyd George not by Micheal Collins, DeValera would have done the same thing in Collin's place, he already tried and when he couldn't get it he sent Collins over to bring home the bad news, DeValera knew quite well what we would get and didn't want to tarnish his image.

there was plenty of gear came out of the woodwork post 1921

Yes but not enough, we suffered huge loses during the attack on the Customs House and were running out of ammo we would not have lasted another two months if we continued.

jaysus , the emerald pimpernell . British morale was effectively broken in the rural hinterlands . Michael collins played no part whatsoever in this war effort . It would have continued against an already demoralised enemey that didnt want to be there .

I don't know where you get your facts from but Morale or no morale Britiain would have no problem fighting again, and Collins did play a huge part a very huge pat and this is why
(1) His intelligence Agency was vital for getting onfo on the British
(2)He was the leader of the IRB which was running the show from behind the scenes
(3)The IRA listened to him, but neve listened to the government, who do you think he gave the name The Big Fella
(4)He helped free DeValera from prison who effectively ran us into the ground, but you seem to believe he is the true hero

This is absolute nonsense Im afraid . Ireland was fully garrisoned by tens of thousands of regular troops who very much were used on a daily basis in counter insurgent activities and in large scale manouvres . The Black and Tans and Auxiliaries were police auxiliaries , carrying out the duties of the already demoralised and decimated RIC .
The proper army were sent into west cork to deal with Tom Barrys flying column , which they outnumbered many times over , successfuly encircled by sheer force of nyumbers and were physically beaten in a stand up engagement at Crossbarry . They were thoroughly routed . This caused British morale to plummet . The officer in charge of all British troops in Ireland wasked to give a ful assessment of the military situation in Ireland to the British cbinet . His stark replywas that British morale had been broken and that in his opinion British troops should not be asked to remain in Ireland one more winter . It was on receiving this advice that the British cabinet asked for a truce .

iIeland was garrisoned by 10,000 troops maybe more, but England could send 100,000 troops of the regular army if we refused, if you thought the Black and Tans were easy then you'd be quite surprised to see what Britain could have done with the real army

a sizable chunk of our national territory is still occupied by Britian , therefore Ireland isnt independent . Its national sovereignty is still violated .

It is occupied by Britain because the Northern Irish people want to be British, and once again that was Lloyd George's fault for not sticking to his name. By the way, would you say North Korea is not indepedant because it's not it's connecteted with South Korea

As for various figues , so what ? Someone else would have , and probably done an even better job .

Who?

untrue . We got precisely what Britian was offering prior to 1914 , partitioned home rule . We got this from an enemy whose will to fight on had been broken by guerilla attacks and boycott of their rule and their forces by the general population . Our plenipotentiaries simply made a complete bollix of negotitations , followed by elements of our political society behaving in the most undemocratic manner in order to subvert national sovereignty and democracy in their rush for personal power .

We got better then Britain offered in 1914, we got our own army, police force, government, we were able to run ourselves again(to an extent) and we could choose to enter war or not

refusing to have democracy and sovereignty subverted and standing by our rights as a nation would have seen democracy and national sovereignty defended , put at the heart of our political system and spared us decades of conflcit in a still unresolved conflict in our country.

[/QUOTE]
Defend Demorcacy?And how would we do that go u to Britain and tell them their not being very Democratic, may i remind you that Britain was the first country to bring out Interment Camps the lad to the killing of millions of people during the Boer War and their claim to other nations dose not really fit well with Democracy, we have not chance in hell in fighting a foe who could outrightly knock us back into the Stone Age.

But then again and this is totally off subject but i would still fight and die for Ireland if i was given the chance, i just wouldn't like to see the rest of the Irish people sacrificed because some people refuse to see the good side of the Treaty

walrusgumble

i can understand why people in 1921 felt that they would be willing to go to civil war over the treaty - but in hindsight, i really doubt michael collins would have accepted anything less than a republic if he thought his men were not able to continue fighting.

Tom Barry once said to a journalists when asked if they could have continued to drive the brits out, Barry replied, (maybe jokingly), that they were not able to drive the brits out of a decent sized barracks.

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

I don't know about nation who would be proud of its fight against itself /USA hear you say/. Maybe this is the reason, shame and selective memory? Perhaps?
It's always easier to point at "common" enemy /1916-1921/ than trying to find explanation for meaningles tribalistic killing. I think

And

FiSe wrote: »

I don't know here, we don't know, what would happen if... so we can only argue and throwing "abuses" on each other, because we know what happened.
In my opinion, civil war, which /let's face it, is a shamefull black stain on the face of the nation/ followed after the treaty episode and civil war /no trouble no unrest/ up the Northside is nothing in comparshion what would be if the treaty would be ejected.
I think that we are talking about full scale /civil/ war -Spanish type, with heavy involvment of UK forces and massive bodycount on both, or god only knows how many, sides lasting for years. As I said my opinion.


I don't like the style of your posts. You know your stuff, no irony here, but you're writing your personal opinions as if they were universal truth.
The world is big enough and focusing your mind solely on one tiny island in the middle of nowhere without seeing "the bigger picture" doesn't do any good.
I'm quite happy to say that I have no problems with the borders, or "Irish freedom" if there's such a thing, after all they are only thick line on the map. But I have a problems with partitions created in the brain...
I think, that this nation needs to be more focused on the present and the future, rather then fighting 80yrs old battles over and over again being led by 3rd class leaders. Anyway getting off topic here, sorry :eek:

Firstly, can you drop the continious use of the slash / and just directly make your point ? Thanks.

I see over on the World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil? thread, on you describe it as " In general as it stands, good vs evil. " though you describe Ireland's struggle 1916 - 1921 as meaningles tribalistic killing :mad: ..... so your obviously a unionist, maybe a unionist with a small u, but a unionist nonetheless. How anyone can describe Irelands struggle against britian as anything but good vs evil is beyond me, but then I don't have the mindset of a unionist. ( And don't bother giving me the I'm from Wicklow or Limerick bit, your no more from Wicklow or Limerick than my big toe or that Croppyboy1798 is from Carlow).

" you're writing your personal opinions as if they were universal truth."
Unless consiously lying, people normally believe their opinion to be the truth.

" The world is big enough and focusing your mind solely on one tiny island in the middle of nowhere without seeing "the bigger picture" doesn't do any good." I have posted on the Romans, WW1,WW2, famous Generals, J Edgar Hoover etc, etc, etc if you take the care to look. But since the subject matter of this thread is 1916, war of independance and civil war I posted my opinion on the period and it's consequnces.

" I'm quite happy to say that I have no problems with the borders, or "Irish freedom" if there's such a thing, after all they are only thick line on the map. But I have a problems with partitions created in the brain..." So, Ireland's struggle for Independance is all about " only thick line on the map ". So now we know the Vietnam War was only about a " thick line on the map", that the division of Europe after WW2 was only a " thick line on the map", or for that matter that the Palestinian refugees living today on the West Bank have no real grievance as the Isreali state is just a different colour on the map :mad:

" I think, that this nation needs to be more focused on the present and the future, rather then fighting 80yrs old battles over and over again being led by 3rd class leaders. " So, you'd like us all to forget about partition, the crimes inflicted on our grandparents by the british army and the unionists, the financial extortion etc. ' lets pretend' the northeast of the country isn't under occupation, now own't that just suit a unionist lovely. I am giving my opinion on the era, the actions and consequnces of those peole invovled.

Shutuplaura

I didn't read every post becasue I'm sure its all the same old stuff. I did catch someone trying to say the civil war wasd unimportant which is plainly nonsense. The Civil war has effected Ireland down to the present day. The two main political parties differences can only be understood with reference to eachs heritage as the pro/anti treaty side. Otherwise, whats the difference betyween them?? The civil war in short has stunted the development of normal left/right politics in this country and I doubt it will change for a very long time. This is even besides the fact it was the most intensive bloody and widespread of the three conflicts

Shutuplaura

FiSe wrote: »

I think, that this nation needs to be more focused on the present and the future, rather then fighting 80yrs old battles over and over again being led by 3rd class leaders. Anyway getting off topic here, sorry :eek:

With respect, if you think we shouldn't focus on the past, why are you commenting on a history topic, on the history and heritage board?

brianthebard

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I didn't read every post becasue I'm sure its all the same old stuff. I did catch someone trying to say the civil war wasd unimportant which is plainly nonsense. The Civil war has effected Ireland down to the present day. The two main political parties differences can only be understood with reference to eachs heritage as the pro/anti treaty side. Otherwise, whats the difference betyween them?? The civil war in short has stunted the development of normal left/right politics in this country and I doubt it will change for a very long time. This is even besides the fact it was the most intensive bloody and widespread of the three conflicts

FG was actually set up in part as a way of getting away from the civil war legacy. Its testament to the impact of the civil war on Irish politics and history that they failed to stop the pro-treaty tag sticking.

Shutuplaura

Thats nonsense. Why do they hold Michael Collins commemorations, have as their first two (three maybe?) leaders prominant anti-treatites, have the support of the Army comerades association, have a leader in more recent times a former CnaG first minister. They didn't try very hard to move beyond civil war politics, at least until Garrets time in the 1980's.

brianthebard

I'm not saying it was the sole reason, just one reason. Every party tries to claim Michael Collins as their own.

FiSe

Shutuplaura wrote: »

With respect, if you think we shouldn't focus on the past, why are you commenting on a history topic, on the history and heritage board?

That's why I made appology there, or did I not?
It was ment in general and aimed to MacA, so the quote above my reply to him/her.
I like heritage and history forum and discussions here, but without abusing someone for something which we can't change. Hope this makes sence :cool:

Shutuplaura

Fise, again, with respect, these posts on the Anglo-Irish war are so popular becasue everyone likes to have a bit of a barney about it. Complaining about people not getting over the past on one is like complaining about the lads on the military thread always taking about war or the people in the rugby board not talking more about rugby. Completely pointless. but thanks for the apology. I'll also apologise for draging this thread further off topic.

Brian, the aim of FG was to unite various pro - treaty elements against FF. End of story. If they said anything else in a founding manifesto or something like that then its just one more example of political spin.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Fise, again, with respect, these posts on the Anglo-Irish war are so popular becasue everyone likes to have a bit of a barney about it. Complaining about people not getting over the past on one is like complaining about the lads on the military thread always taking about war or the people in the rugby board not talking more about rugby. Completely pointless. but thanks for the apology. I'll also apologise for draging this thread further off topic.

Brian, the aim of FG was to unite various pro - treaty elements against FF. End of story. If they said anything else in a founding manifesto or something like that then its just one more example of political spin.

Agreed with most of your points but " the aim of FG was to unite various pro - treaty elements against FF ". Wasn't FF not formed until 1926 when Dev split form SF ??
But you are right that FG ( or Cumann na nGaedhael ) aim was to unite the pro treaty elements, and that also included the unionists south of the new border abandoned by their loyal friends in the northeast of the country

Balmed Out

Think the only shambols was the easter rising, you have to look at the treaty a bit more pragmatically. Its easy for us to criticise it today but one could say it was a massive achievement to manage to get any degree of independence given the inbalunce between both sides.

Trapper86

Im not sure that many realise the term terrorism is to define those whose actions threaten an entire nation or community of people. The Old IRAs actions were of the kind that only fought the British Military. People also mistake the term Constabulary for a Primary Police force. They are not the same at all. Constabularies historical responsibilities focus around being a quasi-military force, often with the same duties, training, equipment etc. The RIC was this type of force. Their training, duties and armanent was equal to that of the British army. They were armed with the lee enfield no 3 carbine with Bayonet, Lewis Gun (type of machine gun) No. 5 mills bomb (the most prolific military grenade of World War 1). They also could have access to armoured cars upon request. This is Not a conventional police force. The OLD IRAs actions were directed toward armed members of the british military. Even the most reviled actions of the OLD IRA were the killing of the british secret Police known as the G Division and even they were armed with a standard webley pistol. It hurts any patriotic Irishmen including myself to hear of people comparing the OLD IRA with that of the later groups.

donaghs

I get the impression some people learn most of their history singing rebel songs. To compare the 1921 Treaty to the earlier Home Rule proposals is ridiculous. Compare the two parliaments that emerged from that time: Stormont and the Dail. Stormont was abolished by the British government in the early 70s. The Dail is the parliament of a sovereign independent Republic.

Its easy to forget some of the basic facts after the events. The Civil War was very unpopular in Ireland. People were sick of conflict. The conflict was continued though because of a dedicated minority within the Republican movement. Dev was a political opportunist. He knew what was on offer from Lloyd George from meeting him in person. He attempted to be the political leader of the anti-Treaty side, but was basically sidelined during the Civil War as the Irregular leaders like Liam Lynch had little use or respect for him. The death of all these "soldiers" allowed politicians like Dev to reassert himself.

Shutuplaura

Trapper86 wrote: »

Im not sure that many realise the term terrorism is to define those whose actions threaten an entire nation or community of people. The Old IRAs actions were of the kind that only fought the British Military. People also mistake the term Constabulary for a Primary Police force. They are not the same at all. Constabularies historical responsibilities focus around being a quasi-military force, often with the same duties, training, equipment etc. The RIC was this type of force. Their training, duties and armanent was equal to that of the British army. They were armed with the lee enfield no 3 carbine with Bayonet, Lewis Gun (type of machine gun) No. 5 mills bomb (the most prolific military grenade of World War 1). They also could have access to armoured cars upon request. This is Not a conventional police force. The OLD IRAs actions were directed toward armed members of the british military. Even the most reviled actions of the OLD IRA were the killing of the british secret Police known as the G Division and even they were armed with a standard webley pistol. It hurts any patriotic Irishmen including myself to hear of people comparing the OLD IRA with that of the later groups.

So could the RUC. Fair enough if you want to draw a line between the Old IRA and the Provos, but to do it for that reason is false. The RUC were armed, had access to machine guns and caried pistols as a matter of course. They alsways have been so its not just in response to the recent troubles. They also used armoured cars, water cannons rubber and plastic bullets and body armour, and used to have to get army support to patrol certain areas of the north. Sorry, is this off topic, I'll stop. I just don't see the difference between the RIC and the RUC from the way you've described it.

Trapper86

ShutupLaura - It wasnt just for that reason that people should not refer to Old and Later IRAs as one and the same. I was cut off from finishing my statement before I could elaborate. Apart from the obvious difference in timescale there are also other reasons. They differed in Tactics, Organisational Structure, democratic support and Targets. One only has to look at the drastic difference in tactics to realise this. The Old IRA favoured ambushes and direct assault on barracks and troops (often in vehicles on patrol). The vast majority of the casualties caused by the Old IRA were in this fashion. They invariably let go the RIC after they had captured and confiscated arms. They disarmed and let go many times the number that they killed. Many times chance of surrender was given. They were often in respected places within the community and they championed democratically the people that respected them. The Sutton index will tell you that around 1800 deaths were caused by the PIRA and that around 600 of those were not part of any armed body. They killed security and paramilitary often with a booby trap bomb. Any that they caught were invariably killed.

Trapper86

Donaghs - My current favourite book on the Northern Ireland troubles happens to be the Sutton Index of names of the dead as the result of it. It is my favourite on the basis of its impartiality and its factuality. I care little for songs as they rarely give a factual account of
actual happenings. And Im from a C of I background which means I dont really know any rebel songs. Teach me? I know the book of common prayer pretty well but it gets boring when you recite things by rota once every seven days your whole life.

Trapper86

Also ShutupLaura - many instances were given regarding the courtesies the Old IRA afforded their prisoners. One account is of a General Lucas who was in IRA custody and they even took him on a supervised fishing trip.

donaghs

Trapper86, I wasn't specifically referring to your post, but to the general course of Treaty/Civil War discussion. I'd agree with all your last points.

In relation to the RIC though, it's a little bit more complex (as always!).
The RIC did indeed have greater access to heavier arms than other British police forces, but the typical Constable would not have been heavily armed.

As IRA violence increased, so did the paramilitary nature of the RIC.

The IRA tended to direct their activities towards police and paramilitary police (Black & Tans), because these forces allowed the British government to rule Ireland. The regular British army were more of a backup force and could not be expected to fill the role of the police.

Excluding the Black & Tans, the RIC were made up of Irishmen - predominantly Catholic. So you could say there was an element of Civil War about the attempt to create an independent Ireland.

Shutuplaura

Trapper86 wrote: »

Also ShutupLaura - many instances were given regarding the courtesies the Old IRA afforded their prisoners. One account is of a General Lucas who was in IRA custody and they even took him on a supervised fishing trip.

Trapper your right they are not one and the same and I'm certainly not going to try and claim they were. The reason you gave initially just puzzled me. If you didn't get a chance to elaborate fair enough, that would explain it. They do have their similarities too and it always annoys me when people don't acknowledge that fact also. The 'Old' IRA were every bit as ruthless when they wanted to. Lucas lived because it suited the IRA. If he hadn't escaped he could very well have been shot. An RIC DI was held in captivity in much the same way, well treated, then shot in reprisal. Was it D.I. Potter, I can't remember off hand. The 'Old' IRA also shot plenty spies and informers and was definitely not shy about shooting unarmed people who they felt would be better off dead.

McArmalite

Trapper86 wrote: »

ShutupLaura - It wasnt just for that reason that people should not refer to Old and Later IRAs as one and the same. I was cut off from finishing my statement before I could elaborate. Apart from the obvious difference in timescale there are also other reasons. They differed in Tactics, Organisational Structure, democratic support and Targets. One only has to look at the drastic difference in tactics to realise this. The Old IRA favoured ambushes and direct assault on barracks and troops (often in vehicles on patrol). The vast majority of the casualties caused by the Old IRA were in this fashion. They invariably let go the RIC after they had captured and confiscated arms. They disarmed and let go many times the number that they killed. Many times chance of surrender was given. They were often in respected places within the community and they championed democratically the people that respected them. The Sutton index will tell you that around 1800 deaths were caused by the PIRA and that around 600 of those were not part of any armed body. They killed security and paramilitary often with a booby trap bomb. Any that they caught were invariably killed.

When did the Old IRA become the 'NEW' IRA ??

Ah yes, here we go again, the 'goodie' IRA ( 1916 - 1921 ) and the 'baddie' IRA ( 1922 - ). I suppose by your argument the 'goodie' OLD IRA became the 'baddie' NEW IRA at the stroke of midnight at the signing of the treaty* of partition by the gallant founding fathers of the Free State who then promptly attacked and murdered their old comrades in the 'baddie' IRA at he behest of britian.

And since you brought up some the subject about deaths in the north, provoking stats according to research undertaken by the CAIN* organisation -

Civilians killed , " 85.6% (873) of Loyalist killings, 52.9% (190) by the security forces and 35.9% (738) of all killings by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001. "

Combatants killed " Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the security forces killed 192 and the Loyalists killed 147. "

* http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html


* Likewise by implication, the occupying forces in the six counties stopped been the 'baddies' at the at the stroke of midnight at the signing of the treaty and became the 'goodie' 'peacekeepers' which obviously includes the RUC who murdered and batoned nationalists across the north for decades and the brits who did likewise to civil rights marchers etc

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

Civilians killed , " 85.6% (873) of Loyalist killings, 52.9% (190) by the security forces and 35.9% (738) of all killings by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001. "

Combatants killed " Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the security forces killed 192 and the Loyalists killed 147. "

I only wonder how many "civilians" were members of paramilitaries or terrorist organisations, no matter which ones...
And how do you know that that dead fella here is combatant or civvie. No uniform was worn by paramilitaries. Numbers are not as they seems.

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

I only wonder how many "civilians" were members of paramilitaries or terrorist organisations, no matter which ones...
And how do you know that that dead fella here is combatant or civvie. No uniform was worn by paramilitaries. Numbers are not as they seems.

Well as you can obviously see, CAIN have provided a list of Civilians and Combatants :rolleyes: If you have a problem with the stats contact CAIN, I'm only quoting them.

And since the 'security forces' organised, armed and trianed the loyalists, I would propose that it would not be unreasonable to attribute the loyalists murders to the same said 'security forces' directing them.

kreuzberger

[quote=Trapper86;55787257

Im not sure that many realise the term terrorism is to define those whose actions threaten an entire nation or community of people. The Old IRAs actions were of the kind that only fought the British Military. People also mistake the term Constabulary for a Primary Police force. They are not the same at all. Constabularies historical responsibilities focus around being a quasi-military force, often with the same duties, training, equipment etc. The RIC was this type of force. Their training, duties and armanent was equal to that of the British army. They were armed with the lee enfield no 3 carbine with Bayonet, Lewis Gun (type of machine gun) No. 5 mills bomb (the most prolific military grenade of World War 1). They also could have access to armoured cars upon request. This is Not a conventional police force.

But the RUC just carried on where the RIC left off ? They were exactly the same force , many southern RIC men even moved north to join it . In the current era they were armed with Ruger assault rifles , Ruger revolvers , SLR assault rifles , sterling submachine guns , Heckler and Koch submachine guns and HK assault rifles as a matter of course . They travelled in heavily armoured landrovers and bullet proof cars as ROUTINE . In areas like south armagh they dispensed even with armoured cars as the risk of ambush was too great and moved only by military helicopter accompanied by dozens of foreign troops .They most definitely were a paramilitary body

The OLD IRAs actions were directed toward armed members of the british military.

and also those civilians who collaborated with them , they were every bit as ruthless as the provos in this regard . Hundreds of informers , men and women , young and old were despatched with bullet to the head and dumped on the roadsides of Ireland as a warning to others . Women consorting with foreign troops had their heads shaved and were exiled . Youve obviously not heard of the southern reprisals for the British atrocities and pogroms in Belfast . You neglect to mention the burnings of the unionist owned stately homes in reprisal for British atrocities . Tom Barry , the most famous guerilla commander of all bluntly pointed out the British decided to go into the gutter and the IRA had to follow them down into it in order to fight them .

this is just one account of the activities of Frank Aikens north louth/south armagh 4th northern division


South Armagh became fertile killing ground with reprisal and counter reprisal killings between the IRA and the B-Specials. In June 1921, four Catholics were taken from their homes at Altnaveigh near Bessbrook, and shot dead on the roadside. Amid ambushes on Special patrols by large IRA units, Frank Aiken's men, as part of the overall burning campaign being carried out against Unionist property throughout May and June 1922, burned the homes and farms of Orange Order members in County Armagh. One date that stands out in the memory of Protestants is the 17th of June, 1922, the date of what is termed the 'Altnaveigh Massacre', when six Protestants and a Special were shot and killed, as the IRA, around 50 strong, raided selected Protestant homes killings residents and burning their houses. The killings were the result of four burnings, while five further homes were burned without fatalities.

The Altnaveigh raids had been proceeded by an ambush on a 14 man Special patrol at Drumintee in which a B-Special was killed and another wounded. The ambush was carried out from James McGuill's public house (himself a leading Republican in the area) which sat on a short steep hill with a turn which would necessitate a considerable slackening of speed in cars coming from Forkhill and was therefore well situated for an ambush. The bar was burned after the attack and its walls knocked down in what County Inspector W.S. Moore described 'as a matter of military necessity.' Another element of the War of Independence at that time was the abduction of RICmen, or suspected spy's and informants. In some cases these men were executed by the IRA and their bodies buried in bogs never to be seen or heard of again.

The family of a Protestant, William Frazer from Newtownhamilton, were fortunate in that following his shooting at the end of June 1922 in South Armagh, the RUC were told, in 1924, that his body was buried in a bog on the Ballard Mountain, about four miles from Camlough

Even the most reviled actions of the OLD IRA were the killing of the british secret Police known as the G Division and even they were armed with a standard webley pistol. It hurts any patriotic Irishmen including myself to hear of people comparing the OLD IRA with that of the later groups

Im not sure who these were actually reviled by except for a few bishops . I always thought they were quite popular operations . Id also point out to you the opinions of the late Dan Keating for example ,a Tan war veteran from Co Kerry . He claimed it was the same fight against the same enemy and if in his day hed had semtex hed have used it without hesitation .

kreuzberger

Trapper86 wrote: »

ShutupLaura - It wasnt just for that reason that people should not refer to Old and Later IRAs as one and the same. I was cut off from finishing my statement before I could elaborate. Apart from the obvious difference in timescale there are also other reasons. They differed in Tactics,

ambush , reprisal , general mayhem . Both did the same . The tactics necessary to evade a convoy of crossley tenders and a formation of helicopter gunships are probably quite different . But the principle was the same .

Organisational Structure,

as Tom Barry pointed a lot of the IRA organisational structure existed on paper only . What it boiled down to was the ASU . Dan Breens unit operated with a handful of close quarter killers . Tom Barrys with a larger column , which itself sometimes split into small three , two and even one man units for close quarter assassinations . There was very little difference

democratic support

the level of democratic support for republican seperatists as opposed to constitutional nationalists was pretty much the same in the north during the conflict as it was in the war for Independence . Except even DeValera couldnt get elected in west Belfast .

and Targets.

the targets were pretty much the same . Members of the occupation forces and those who collaborated with them .

One only has to look at the drastic difference in tactics to realise this. The Old IRA favoured ambushes and direct assault on barracks and troops (often in vehicles on patrol).

But the provos did this regularly ?

The vast majority of the casualties caused by the Old IRA were in this fashion. They invariably let go the RIC after they had captured and confiscated arms. They disarmed and let go many times the number that they killed. Many times chance of surrender was given.

the provos did this at the beginning also . British soldiers were captured and released into the custiody of local priests . The counter insurgent campaign sponsored by the British often using sectarian paramilitaries as proxies or undercover soldiers posing as paramilitaries engendered such bitterness that no prisoners came to be taken . This wasnt any more ruthless than what many other european partisans did 30 years earlier .

They were often in respected places within the community and they championed democratically the people that respected them.

The IRA of the 20s was denounced weekly from the pulpit as the scum of the earth and its members excommunicated . The media did the same . an insurgent campaign in the north that lasted for decades could not have been sustained without major community support . Mnay IRA people were well respected in their communities north and south .

The Sutton index will tell you that around 1800 deaths were caused by the PIRA and that around 600 of those were not part of any armed body. They killed security and paramilitary often with a booby trap bomb. Any that they caught were invariably killed

and they killed many others with rifles ,heavy machine guns , grenades mines , mortars , rockets and pistols . Almost every account of the IRA of the 20s makes clear that they simply did not possess a reliable supply of explosives or have much of a clue how to use them despite the IRA themselves crying out for them . If they had possessed the know how theyd have been as prolific in bombing as the provos had been .

Im sorry but your view of your own history seems rose tinted to a ridiculous degree .

Shutuplaura

Ireland is a small island, Ulster a smaller part of it. People would usually know if someone is an innocent civilian or a paramilitary. For instance Bloody Sunday - the army tried to claim some of the killed were IRA but its known they were not.

Paramilitary organizations usually claimed their own also. I'd say that its known for the vast majority of people killed in the north how involved they were or not.

But anyway, thats off topic - sorry

guinnessdrinker

Trapper86 wrote: »

One only has to look at the drastic difference in tactics to realise this. The Old IRA favoured ambushes and direct assault on barracks and troops (often in vehicles on patrol).

I'm just wondering do you regard the "Old IRA" to be completely different to later IRA's. I say this because the IRA during the border campaign of 56' to '62 used some of those tactics that you mentioned too, such as direct assaults on barracks. Although by this time their tactics were outdated.

Trapper86 wrote: »

They invariably let go the RIC after they had captured and confiscated arms.

Again, the IRA during the fifties did this. Current RSF leader Ruairi O Bradaigh led the largest IRA arms raid in Britian when the raided Hazebrouck Barracks in 1955. They did not kill any of the British soldiers guarding the barracks. They just tied them up.

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The 'Old' IRA also shot plenty spies and informers and was definitely not shy about shooting unarmed people who they felt would be better off dead.

Yes they were very ruthless in dealing with spys. Just look at all the spys killed in Co. Cork alone during the War of Independance.

Let's not kid ourselfs the IRA of the War of Independance are often romanticised about but at the time they were called murderers and cowards by the British. The IRA was never going to continue to use the same tactics again and again because the British always adapted to their tactics. Tom Barry himself even advised later IRA members and told them that the tactics they used in the War of Independance were outdated by the fifties and sixties.

donaghs wrote: »

Excluding the Black & Tans, the RIC were made up of Irishmen - predominantly Catholic. So you could say there was an element of Civil War about the attempt to create an independent Ireland.

Unfortunalty very ture and often overlooked. Just like how Irishmen in British army units fought against fellow Irishmen in 1916 and in plenty of other battles down through the centuries. Being pessimistic about it, you could almost say the British had no qualms about Irishman fighting Irishman to achieve British objectives.

kreuzberger

[quote=guinnessdrinker;55816464


Unfortunalty very ture and often overlooked. Just like how Irishmen in British army units fought against fellow Irishmen in 1916 and in plenty of other battles down through the centuries. Being pessimistic about it, you could almost say the British had no qualms about Irishman fighting Irishman to achieve British objectives.[/quote]

Itd be more correct to say they preferred it as policy wherever possible , and still do .

Id be interested in hearing suggestions how a structure like this , a large portion of which was underground in fortified bunkers , could be attacked head on 1920 style



http://mprofaca.cro.net/crosssq1.jpg

perhaps if a surrender demand was made beforehand theyd be also be sporting enough to turn off their surveillance cameras , night vision , GPS systems etc and not call for air support either