BBC iPlayer: The Paras (1982)

r3nu4l

It's definitely not a show that would be broadcast today. As sanitised as the show was then it would be far worse now with nothing but spin attached. I'm glad it was filmed when it was and how it was. While it removed a lot of the day-to-day brutality, it highlighted the utter boredom (as Lemming said) of operating in NI and of army life in general for fighting regiments during 'peacetime'. I'm glad too that it chose to keep the focus on 480 platoon and leave the Falklands in the background rather than bringing it to the front all the time.

whitelines

RMD wrote: »

Did it ever cross your mind they could have been happy to see his leg blown off because they had to put up with this shít from the Paras? When fighting an opponent who's backbone is created by civilian support and funding perhaps it's not the smartest to antagonize said civilians?

You assume said 'civilians' would have withheld support for PIRA whatever The Paras had done.

Lemming

r3nu4l wrote: »

Well this is weird!!! Only today I was at Ickworth House (a national trust property in Suffolk) and in the bowels of the house is a secondhand book shop...guess what I just bought for £2.50...

Yup, Frank Hilton's 'The Paras'.

It's the first (possibly only) edition of the book and on pages 244-248 there are photos of 480 platoon and a listing of what they were currently doing at the time of printing of the book in 1983. Philip Tattum was listed as being in 3 Para in the book but anyone who has watched the series will know there was a follow-up to him.

There was another book on the Paras from back in the late 80s/early 90s that I'll need to go find the name of. My brother bought it and I remember constantly reading it in fascination when was about nine or ten years of age. Unfortunately the book is in the family home and I'm .. well .. in another country so no popping over to look for it alas.

It was a paperback format book, maroon bordering/backing with the picture of a lad from 2 para (blue flash was visible) on the front wearing his maroon lid, looking down his SA80 - I think it was also posed in woodland setting.

johnny_doyle

I was in 465 platoon, recruit company in 1980. Some interesting characters. Quite a few Irish.

Watched the series when it came out. Thought it was fairly good and have a copy of the book somewhere.

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

You assume said 'civilians' would have withheld support for PIRA whatever The Paras had done.

True enough, I suppose other regiments as well as the RUC, UDR, can take credit with their thuggery and provacation which resulted in yer man a getting his leg blown off and people allegedly slagging them about it.

whitelines

thecommietommy wrote: »

True enough, I suppose other regiments as well as the RUC, UDR, can take credit with their thuggery and provacation which resulted in yer man a getting his leg blown off and people allegedly slagging them about it.

Yes, there was a conflict with much hatred on both sides of The NI community. The laugh is where people presume some sort of softly softly approach could have forced PIRA to the negotiating table. Many RC 'civilians' aided and abetted PIRA in any way the could as many PIRA militants have testified over the years. The idea that these types could have been won over is simply laughable. The only way to break a determined clandestine insurrection is to deliver such pain and hardship to the militants' host community, that said community finally asks the militants (who spring from said community) to call it a day.

Rawhead

whitelines wrote: »

Yes, there was a conflict with much hatred on both sides of The NI community. The laugh is where people presume some sort of softly softly approach could have forced PIRA to the negotiating table. Many RC 'civilians' aided and abetted PIRA in any way the could as many PIRA militants have testified over the years. The idea that these types could have been won over is simply laughable. The only way to break a determined clandestine insurrection is to deliver such pain and hardship to the militants' host community, that said community finally asks the militants (who spring from said community) to call it a day.

Or they could always just bugger off home and leave said community alone.

whitelines

Rawhead wrote: »

Or they could always just bugger off home and leave said community alone.

In the case of The UK armed forces, said community begged them to come in.

Lemming

johnny_doyle wrote: »

I was in 465 platoon, recruit company in 1980. Some interesting characters. Quite a few Irish.

With apologies to r3nu4l for the OT post.

Johnny, would you mind my asking what was the attitude towards Irishmen both through recruit training & within the Paras in the early 1980s given that the troubles were very much in full-swing & appearing to escalate further.

Obviously no army is one big happy family and personal attitudes of individual recruits/soldiers aside, was there any real animosity shown or attempts to isolate/exclude the Irish recruits - either from other recruits or the DS - to the point of "encouraging" them to quit, beyond what the DS would typically do to weed out those not up to the task?

r3nu4l

Not quite as off-topic as yo might think Lemming. There were two guys from Dublin in 480 platoon (I only found this out from the book) but they don't appear to have made it very far and there's only a brief mention in the book so yeah, it would be good to know what attitudes were like at that time.

cruasder777

r3nu4l wrote: »

Not quite as off-topic as yo might think Lemming. There were two guys from Dublin in 480 platoon (I only found this out from the book) but they don't appear to have made it very far and there's only a brief mention in the book so yeah, it would be good to know what attitudes were like at that time.

There was alot of friction for Irish soldiers serving in the BA, especially in the 70s and 80s because of the NI situation, some were given the cold shoulder to the point of quitting, there was also friction between the Irish Guards, who were called bullet dodgers for not serving in NI and other regiments. Quite a few punch ups between the Irish Guards and other regiments. Some NCOs were very anti Irish.

Even this guy got alot of hassle serving in the Paras in the 70s.

http://www.worldendurancechampion.co.uk/biography.aspx

Paddy Doyle

At the age of 20 yrs he joined the Parachute Regiment and was awarded champion recruit for outstanding fitness levels and determination, he then became a member with 2 Para, passing the 6 week course for patrols / reconnaissance company. Whilst serving with the Paras, Doyle represented the Battalion in army cross country competitions. He also was a regular visitor to the army prison cells for disorderly conduct fighting with Military Police and other soldiers from other units.

thecommietommy

cruasder777 wrote: »

There was alot of friction for Irish soldiers serving in the BA, especially in the 70s and 80s because of the NI situation, some were given the cold shoulder to the point of quitting, there was also friction between the Irish Guards, who were called bullet dodgers for not serving in NI and other regiments. Quite a few punch ups between the Irish Guards and other regiments. Some NCOs were very anti Irish.

Even this guy got alot of hassle serving in the Paras in the 70s.

http://www.worldendurancechampion.co.uk/biography.aspx

Paddy Doyle

At the age of 20 yrs he joined the Parachute Regiment and was awarded champion recruit for outstanding fitness levels and determination, he then became a member with 2 Para, passing the 6 week course for patrols / reconnaissance company. Whilst serving with the Paras, Doyle represented the Battalion in army cross country competitions. He also was a regular visitor to the army prison cells for disorderly conduct fighting with Military Police and other soldiers from other units.

Sounds like Paddy Blair Mayne

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Yes, there was a conflict with much hatred on both sides of The NI community. The laugh is where people presume some sort of softly softly approach could have forced PIRA to the negotiating table. Many RC 'civilians' aided and abetted PIRA in any way the could as many PIRA militants have testified over the years. The idea that these types could have been won over is simply laughable. The only way to break a determined clandestine insurrection is to deliver such pain and hardship to the militants' host community, that said community finally asks the militants (who spring from said community) to call it a day.

Well an IRA supporter could say the exact same regarding Enniskillen, Birmingham etc which I would totally disagree with.

But are you trying to imply that men watching a football match in Loughinisland or Xmas shoppers on Talbot St Dublin were somehow the "host communtiy" and "such pain and hardship" legitimately had to be infliicted on these innocent people ?

whitelines

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well an IRA supporter could say the exact same regarding Enniskillen, Birmingham etc which I would totally disagree with.

But are you trying to imply that men watching a football match in Loughinisland or Xmas shoppers on Talbot St Dublin were somehow the "host communtiy" and "such pain and hardship" legitimately had to be infliicted on these innocent people ?

There's different means of applying 'pain and hardship' to a terrorist host community. It can be applied legally through internment, saturating whole areas with troops, repeated search and seize operations, curfews, and can advance through to the destruction of properties that might or where used for terrorist purposes. There are many, many, more oppressive techniques that can be utilised for this purpose - most beyond the scope of what The UK State was prepared to countenance within NI.

As for Loughinisland and Dublin, those operations were not carried out by state forces, but by militant Loyalists. Their view would have been that they added something extra to the process, going further than the legal forces of The Crown, in an attempt to undermine support for PIRA within the broader Nationalist community across The Island of Ireland.

Certainly, within an international context, the use of paramilitary 'death squads' to terrorise insurgents and their supporters would be the norm. Generally though, such auxiliaries would fall fully within state control. In NI, for a number of reasons, Crown forces were unable to act in a similar manner and as a result forces outside state control felt obliged, for ideological reasons, to carry out such operations themselves.

Rawhead

whitelines wrote: »

There's different means of applying 'pain and hardship' to a terrorist host community. It can be applied legally through internment, saturating whole areas with troops, repeated search and seize operations, curfews, and can advance through to the destruction of properties that might or where used for terrorist purposes. There are many, many, more oppressive techniques that can be utilised for this purpose - most beyond the scope of what The UK State was prepared to countenance within NI.

As for Loughinisland and Dublin, those operations were not carried out by state forces, but by militant Loyalists. Their view would have been that they added something extra to the process, going further than the legal forces of The Crown, in an attempt to undermine support for PIRA within the broader Nationalist community across The Island of Ireland.

Certainly, within an international context, the use of paramilitary 'death squads' to terrorise insurgents and their supporters would be the norm. Generally though, such auxiliaries would fall fully within state control. In NI, for a number of reasons, Crown forces were unable to act in a similar manner and as a result forces outside state control felt obliged, for ideological reasons, to carry out such operations themselves.

I think it's generally accepted now that the model for how not to deal with a civilian population is the model used by the British in the early years of the troubles. As you mentioned in an earlier post the catholic community welcomed the army with open arms and viewed them as saviors against the excesses of the unionist establishment.

The Germans failed against the partisans on the eastern front despite having a 100/1 policy against their soldiers being killed.
The Israelis demolish the family homes of suicide bombers and all it does is create more.
The French in Algeria, the CIA in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, NATO in A'stan the list goes on and on. If a determined guerrilla force has widespread public support then you will not succeed.

The reason the British eventually cornered the Provo's was down to old fashioned intelligence work and infiltration. Scared 20 year old squaddies beating up cider swigging teens didn't matter a fook and only created more recruits for the provo's.

whitelines

Rawhead wrote: »

I think it's generally accepted now that the model for how not to deal with a civilian population is the model used by the British in the early years of the troubles. As you mentioned in an earlier post the catholic community welcomed the army with open arms and viewed them as saviors against the excesses of the unionist establishment.

The Germans failed against the partisans on the eastern front despite having a 100/1 policy against their soldiers being killed.
The Israelis demolish the family homes of suicide bombers and all it does is create more.
The French in Algeria, the CIA in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, NATO in A'stan the list goes on and on. If a determined guerrilla force has widespread public support then you will not succeed.

The reason the British eventually cornered the Provo's was down to old fashioned intelligence work and infiltration. Scared 20 year old squaddies beating up cider swigging teens didn't matter a fook and only created more recruits for the provo's.

I don't accept that UK State Forces were overly oppressive at any time during 'the troubles'. In any case, it all comes down to political goals. The examples you offer all have one thing in common - they are examples of foreign armies attempting to pacify a population that is totally opposed to them. In order to succeed in such instances, vast resources must be deployed and a high price must be paid in both blood and treasure AND the proposed outcome must be worth it.

Let's take a look at each of your examples:

The Germans failed against the partisans on the eastern front despite having a 100/1 policy against their soldiers being killed.

The Germans didn't fail against partisans, it was the regular Soviet Forces that drove them back. Had The Germans defeated the regular Soviet Forces, then they would have pacified Russia over time, by ANY means necessary (settling Russia was strategic to The Germans and being in a constant state of insurgency suited Nazi ideology). Pacification had yet to be applied in a hoped for post war environment.

The Israelis demolish the family homes of suicide bombers and all it does is create more.

Because The Israelis have no obvious political goal. If they wish for a Greater Israel, then Palestinians must be driven out (as The Serbs did to The Muslims in Bosnia). If security is their requirement then they must expel all Arabs from Israel's borders and not allow them to return. If accommodation is their aim, then they must negotiate. They have no obvious political goals, so their ad-hoc counter insurgency tactics are pointless. In any case, bar negotiation, they are unable to apply the necessary pressure to achieve alternative outcomes.

The French in Algeria

Initially, The French did achieve desired results by applying overwhelming force against fighters and sympathisers alike, with the view to keeping Algeria French. In that sense oppression succeeded. De Gaulle changed the rules - Algeria wasn't worth keeping as a colony because it had started to cost France money.

the CIA in Vietnam,

In this case, oppression appeared to fail. US liberal democracy and it's associated lifestyle choices meant the sinews of war did not exist.

the Russians in Afghanistan

In this case, oppression appeared to fail for financial reasons.

NATO in A'stan

Jury out. Local allies for NATO do exist and have been used against The Taliban aggressively.

So, to conclude, the use of counter terror has a mixed outcome. In some cases it has worked and in others it hasn't. But these are examples of foreign armies attempting to pacify a population that is totally opposed to them. In may other cases such as in NI, it is an internal security problem that is being addressed and in these cases the use of counter terror has achieved results (such as in south and central America). Obviously, if the majority of the population in such cases is pro-state (such as in NI), then the chances of counter terror achieving pacification become much greater.

Ultimately, it comes down to political goals. What is the future for the insurgents host population to be? Are they to be pushed out? If so the problem is solved. Are they to be incorporated in some manner? Then the choice between full on oppression ('break them') and a political solution has to be made. Both methods have succeeded and failed at different times.

Finally, I don't accept that intelligence work alone broke The IRA.

Rawhead

See there in lies the problem. The people against who the BA where fighting did consider them an invading force. I am not pro IRA or anything like it but I really do resent the attitude held by some that they where a bunch of thick Paddies and that they were defeated easily.
1. They fought one of the worlds most advanced and formidable armies to a standstill for nearly thirty years.
2. They made large area's of the UK no go areas that could only be accessed by air.
3. They carried out some very well planned actions deep behind enemy lines. By these I refer to the mortar attack on 10 Downing St and the Brighton bombing.
4. They bled the UK government white financially.
5. They forced repeated governments to the negotiation table.

They also murdered, maimed and massacred hundreds of men, women and kids, but this revisionist view of the troubles is becoming very one sided. The BA behaved appallingly on a daily basis in the north and during a war both sides do bad things.

whitelines

Rawhead wrote: »

See there in lies the problem. The people against who the BA where fighting did consider them an invading force. I am not pro IRA or anything like it but I really do resent the attitude held by some that they where a bunch of thick Paddies and that they were defeated easily.
1. They fought one of the worlds most advanced and formidable armies to a standstill for nearly thirty years.
2. They made large area's of the UK no go areas that could only be accessed by air.
3. They carried out some very well planned actions deep behind enemy lines. By these I refer to the mortar attack on 10 Downing St and the Brighton bombing.
4. They bled the UK government white financially.
5. They forced repeated governments to the negotiation table.

They also murdered, maimed and massacred hundreds of men, women and kids, but this revisionist view of the troubles is becoming very one sided. The BA behaved appallingly on a daily basis in the north and during a war both sides do bad things.

It's irrelevant whether or not PIRA regarded The UK State Forces as an invading force for two reasons: firstly, The UK State existed and it's borders were accepted by all advanced democratic nations. Secondly, (and perhaps more importantly) the majority of those living in the theatre of conflict did not regard Crown forces as foreign invaders. Obviously, in the case of Germany invading Russia, this wasn't the case. It would have been the case if the majority of those living in Russia had been ethnic Germans and only a minority supported Russian independence from Germany. This is not just a moral point, but a practical one.

Responding to point 1, 'They fought one of the worlds most advanced and formidable armies to a standstill for nearly thirty years' is hyperbole of the worst sort. UK State forces acted as police support during 'the troubles', operating under civil law, they couldn't even discharge their weapons unless lives were threatened. If they were one of the world's 'most advanced and formidable armies', they certainly didn't act that way in NI.

Responding to point 2, 'They made large area's of the UK no go areas that could only be accessed by air'. Well, of course they did. What would you have had The UK Army do? Impose a scorched earth policy in South Armagh? Again, they were acting as an auxiliary police force, not a fighting army.

Responding to point 3, 'They carried out some very well planned actions deep behind enemy lines. By these I refer to the mortar attack on 10 Downing St and the Brighton bombing'. These attacks were made possible because The UK State allowed PIRA to operate effectively at will, deploying The UK Army under the rule of law - civil law. In such circumstances it was inevitable that PIRA would achieve some results.

Responding to point 4, 'They bled the UK government white financially'. They did indeed. In fact, you could say that instead of bullets, The Nationalist community in NI was given silver.

Responding to point 5, 'They forced repeated governments to the negotiation table'. They certainly created an environment in which The UK State abandoned democratic norms in NI.

The reality is that PIRA were a committed and determined terrorist organisation, with commendable staying power, but one which operated within the most benign environments imaginable. Their leaders were free to stroll around NI preaching subversion in public. It's hard to see this being applicable anywhere outside a handful of western nations. Certainly not in The US. Still, you fight what's put in front of you.

Responding to your final point - some do more bad things than others.

Rawhead

I have stated from the start and I'll say it again, you will not and cannot defeat a force that has the support of a large part of the population by military means alone.
The original point about the para's in NI was that they were completely the wrong sort of unit for a policing action. The qualities that make them great soldiers make them ****e policemen. Condoleezza Rice said you don't send the 82nd Airborne as crossing guards.
Germany was welcomed in Georgia and the Ukraine because Stalin and Beria where such tyrants, if the Germans hadn't treated them as unter humans they would readily have fought against Russia.

When you beat up a father in front of his son, go down the street roughing up people and searching them, snatching people out of their beds in the middle of the night, locking them up without trial it doesn't matter if it's Belfast, Kabul, the Mekong or anywhere else, you will turn the population against you irrevocably.

Assad in Syria is applying your tactics and it's not working there either. The Romans learned that to keep a people pacified you have to buy them, NATO is buying peace in Afghanistan, just the same way the UK bought peace in NI.

whitelines

Rawhead wrote: »

I have stated from the start and I'll say it again, you will not and cannot defeat a force that has the support of a large part of the population by military means alone.
The original point about the para's in NI was that they were completely the wrong sort of unit for a policing action. The qualities that make them great soldiers make them ****e policemen. Condoleezza Rice said you don't send the 82nd Airborne as crossing guards.
Germany was welcomed in Georgia and the Ukraine because Stalin and Beria where such tyrants, if the Germans hadn't treated them as unter humans they would readily have fought against Russia.

When you beat up a father in front of his son, go down the street roughing up people and searching them, snatching people out of their beds in the middle of the night, locking them up without trial it doesn't matter if it's Belfast, Kabul, the Mekong or anywhere else, you will turn the population against you irrevocably.

Assad in Syria is applying your tactics and it's not working there either. The Romans learned that to keep a people pacified you have to buy them, NATO is buying peace in Afghanistan, just the same way the UK bought peace in NI.

Regarding the high lighted section - it's actually completely wrong. A large state can simply ethnically cleanse a small minority should it decide. The UK would have had very few problems doing this with Northern Ireland's RC population, had it so wished. In fact, provisional plans were discussed at cabinet level. The good news for Northern Ireland's Nationalist population is that this wasn't the solution implemented, for whatever reason.

Dogwatch

whitelines wrote: »

Regarding the high lighted section - it's actually completely wrong. A large state can simply ethnically cleanse a small minority should it decide. The UK would have had very few problems doing this with Northern Ireland's RC population, had it so wished. In fact, provisional plans were discussed at cabinet level. The good news for Northern Ireland's Nationalist population is that this wasn't the solution implemented, for whatever reason.

I would love to see that. Could you provide links to it please?

Rawhead

whitelines wrote: »

Regarding the high lighted section - it's actually completely wrong. A large state can simply ethnically cleanse a small minority should it decide. The UK would have had very few problems doing this with Northern Ireland's RC population, had it so wished. In fact, provisional plans were discussed at cabinet level. The good news for Northern Ireland's Nationalist population is that this wasn't the solution implemented, for whatever reason.

True and ye have the history to prove it.

thecommietommy

Rawhead wrote: »

The reason the British eventually cornered the Provo's was down to old fashioned intelligence work and infiltration. Scared 20 year old squaddies beating up cider swigging teens didn't matter a fook and only created more recruits for the provo's.

" British eventually cornered the Provo's "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

whitelines wrote: »

Finally, I don't accept that intelligence work alone broke The IRA.

" broke The IRA "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKFzPmDjAo

Rawhead

Yes cornered. I think that most everyone (with a half a brain anyway) will agree that the PIRA where on the ropes in the 90's. They had been infiltrated right up to the highest level, they where losing support from the population and Americas blind eye to fundraising was beginning to change.
They where not defeated but the leadership realised that they had gotten as far with the Armalite as they were going to get and a change in tactic was needed i.e. political means solely.

thecommietommy

Rawhead wrote: »

Yes cornered. I think that most everyone (with a half a brain anyway) will agree that the PIRA where on the ropes in the 90's. They had been infiltrated right up to the highest level, they where losing support from the population and Americas blind eye to fundraising was beginning to change.

So are you saying that the Brit general and Tony as well as their many advisors have only half a brain !!!! I may not like Tony the coniving ****, but the sly git had a very full brain unfortunatley. Individuals with half a brain, conspiracy theorists, British army groupies etc like to push the British propaganda line that the IRA were on their last legs etc, something I grew up with hearing from the early 1970's. Complete nonsense of course.

They where not defeated but the leadership realised that they had gotten as far with the Armalite as they were going to get and a change in tactic was needed i.e. political means solely.

I can agree with you on this, neither side had an outright win, Sinn Fein and the IRA came to the conclusion that demographics would get them to a united Ireland with the ever rising Catholic population (you may/may not agree with this, but I don't want to get into a political debate over the merits of the Good Friday Agreement etc ) would see a United Ireland in two or at the most three decades ( Catholics are already a majority in schoools at the moment and with an ageing/declining Proteastan pop.)

whitelines

Dogwatch wrote: »

I would love to see that. Could you provide links to it please?

Here's a summary from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1417587/Secret-plan-for-the-new-partition-of-Ireland.html

The original cabinet archive material is probably available on line under the thirty year rule if you search for it.

Teangalad

Lemming wrote: »

With apologies to r3nu4l for the OT post.

Johnny, would you mind my asking what was the attitude towards Irishmen both through recruit training & within the Paras in the early 1980s given that the troubles were very much in full-swing & appearing to escalate further.

Obviously no army is one big happy family and personal attitudes of individual recruits/soldiers aside, was there any real animosity shown or attempts to isolate/exclude the Irish recruits - either from other recruits or the DS - to the point of "encouraging" them to quit, beyond what the DS would typically do to weed out those not up to the task?

Good question, another thing I would be interested in hearing is how the Irish lads found/managed serving in NI if they were allowed to?...

Rawhead

thecommietommy wrote: »

So are you saying that the Brit general and Tony as well as their many advisors have only half a brain !!!! I may not like Tony the coniving ****, but the sly git had a very full brain unfortunatley. Individuals with half a brain, conspiracy theorists, British army groupies etc like to push the British propaganda line that the IRA were on their last legs etc, something I grew up with hearing from the early 1970's. Complete nonsense of course.


I can agree with you on this, neither side had an outright win, Sinn Fein and the IRA came to the conclusion that demographics would get them to a united Ireland with the ever rising Catholic population (you may/may not agree with this, but I don't want to get into a political debate over the merits of the Good Friday Agreement etc ) would see a United Ireland in two or at the most three decades ( Catholics are already a majority in schoools at the moment and with an ageing/declining Proteastan pop.)

If you read my earlier posts I think you'll find that I have stated from the beginning that the PIRA would never have been defeated in NI. I don't think it's brit fanboy stuff to say that the PIRA leadership realised that militarily things had run their course and that they were starting to be put on the back foot. They adopted the USMC euphemism that you don't retreat you just fight in a different direction, which they are doing politically.

Wheeling out a 30sec 1980's edited video clip with a general saying they won't defeat the IRA mean fook all either.

whitelines

thecommietommy wrote: »

I can agree with you on this, neither side had an outright win, Sinn Fein and the IRA came to the conclusion that demographics would get them to a united Ireland with the ever rising Catholic population (you may/may not agree with this, but I don't want to get into a political debate over the merits of the Good Friday Agreement etc ) would see a United Ireland in two or at the most three decades ( Catholics are already a majority in schoools at the moment and with an ageing/declining Proteastan pop.)

I'm afraid that theory doesn't stand close examination. PIRA had available the demographic projections from a very early date, yet they continued the violence into the early nineties. I think that demographics were only a part of the explanation for The IRA collapse. Perhaps the likes of Adams under the tutelage of John Hume did buy into demographic change delivering Irish Unity, but I'd be amazed if PIRA as a whole did. In fact I'd be staggered.

whitelines

Rawhead wrote: »

If you read my earlier posts I think you'll find that I have stated from the beginning that the PIRA would never have been defeated in NI. I don't think it's brit fanboy stuff to say that the PIRA leadership realised that militarily things had run their course and that they were starting to be put on the back foot. They adopted the USMC euphemism that you don't retreat you just fight in a different direction, which they are doing politically.

Wheeling out a 30sec 1980's edited video clip with a general saying they won't defeat the IRA mean fook all either.

Your comment on PIRA switching from violence to politics needs some expansion. The key issue is why PIRA switched. If PIRA switched to a political path because it unilaterally reached the decision that politics would achieve strategic success without violence, then it could feel it had won some sort of victory (at least within it's collective mind). However, if PIRA abandoned violence due to third party pressure and switched to politics as a fall back position, then it can only be assumed that PIRA's cause was actually undermined (at least within it's collective mind). In either case, of course, PIRA perceptions might differ from those of other parties.

You're correct about our friend's videos by the way. He's ignoring the operational role of the security forces in NI and talking as if the security forces were fighting a war rather than keeping the peace. Soldiers can't 'win' a peace keeping mission.