1916, war of independance and civil war

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

Fratton Fred

kreuzberger wrote: »

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

I think you'll find that Irishmen are exempt from serving in Northern Ireland, if that's what you mean.

Lets get real about this, during the war on independance, the British played dirty and the Irish were only too happy to play dirty as well. During the civil war they played even dirtier at times, Irishman butchering Irishman, prisoners shot as retaliation for the murder of Collins.

1916 was nice and clean, a noble group of men martyred themselves in the name of irish independance. Of course it is celebrated more, there is far less to be ashamed of.

berliner

The whole independence thing is a nonsense.What was gained? the way we are now is exactly the way we would have been if we'd stayed in the UK.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

we don't have a queen.
that's not nothing.

DublinWriter

berliner wrote: »

The whole independence thing is a nonsense.What was gained?

One word - Riverdance.

Seriously, the damage the FF brown-baggers did to the architecture of Georgian Dublin would have been as naught compared to what the Luftwaffe could have achieved many years previously.

berliner

Queen Mcaleese up in the park.C'mon,you can do better than that!

berliner

I used to be a republican and believed all the independence bull****.Now i see it for the sham it was.

Fratton Fred

Mordeth wrote: »

we don't have a queen.
that's not nothing.

I know plenty of Queens in Dublin :rolleyes::D

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

:d

Riddle101

berliner wrote: »

The whole independence thing is a nonsense.What was gained? the way we are now is exactly the way we would have been if we'd stayed in the UK.

No the way we are now is quite better then what would have happened if we'd stayed in the UK, it would be much like Ulster now i'd say.

And you seem to take indepedence for granted, just be lucky we don't live in Tibet or Palestine

SlabMurphy

kreuzberger wrote: »

[quote=Trapper86;55787257

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




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



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 .

Agreed 1000%. As for Tom Barry, correct me if I wrong but I think his quote is " the British had gone down into the mire to defeat us and our nation, and down after them we had to go "