How important was Tom Barry in the IWOI?

tdv123

Would he have played a minimal role, a moderate roll or a big role?

I don't know much about him except about Crossbarry with his Column encirclement escape. Is he same guy responsible for Kilmichael ambush?

Is there any books about him?

Also how highly/lowly people on here think about.

I remember Gay Byrne on radio interview calling the west cork brigade a buch of "murderous gangsters" Would many people here share Gay's point?

Balmed Out

He was the leader of arguably the most successful flying column in the war and when the rest of the country was quiet they would often pull off an inspirational attack. I think he was more important then most realise. He would be considered the best commander of the war leading the troops in some of the biggest and most important engagements like crossbarry and kilmichael.
There are plenty of books about him including his own guerilla days in Ireland and meda ryans tom barry, ira freedom fighter.

As for calling him a gangster it depends, I guess, on your political persuasion. Yes, they ambushed and killed RIC men but it was a war.Sinn fein had won an overwhelming majority and reaffirmed the 1916 proclimation of Independance and declared a state of war to exist between Ireland and Britain.
I dont think its a fair comment. I wouldnt consider him any more of a gangster then Michael Collins was, would Gay consider Collins a gangster?, perhaps Tom Barry is just an easier target. 1916 occurred without the election wins etc would Gay call them gangsters? Perhaps it would be a far more deserved title then giving it to Tom Barry but again I think Gay preferred an easier target.

Neutronale

tdv123 wrote: »

Would he have played a minimal role, a moderate roll or a big role?

I don't know much about him except about Crossbarry with his Column encirclement escape. Is he same guy responsible for Kilmichael ambush?

Is there any books about him?

Also how highly/lowly people on here think about.

I remember Gay Byrne on radio interview calling the west cork brigade a buch of "murderous gangsters" Would many people here share Gay's point?

Neutronale

A reconstruction of Kilmichael from 'the Wind that shook the barley'

http://youtu.be/ypmqbBdp6fg

Neutronale

Biography by Meda Ryan.

Neutronale

The happy warrior, a photo taken after the Rosscarbery barracks attack...

Neutronale

"They said I was ruthless, daring, savage, blood thirsty, even heartless. The clergy called me and my comrades murderers; but the British were met with their own weapons. They had gone in the mire to destroy us and our nation and down after them we had to go."

gobnaitolunacy

Neutronale wrote: »

A reconstruction of Kilmichael from 'the Wind that shook the barley'

http://youtu.be/ypmqbBdp6fg[/QUOTE]

'Inspired by' Kilmichael rather than 'reconstruction'.

Busted Flat.

He was one of many, but his outfit would have been one of the best. But then again he could not have succeeded without the help of the population in the counties he traveled. Some counties with men like him, had a hard time during the struggle surviving, because of the failure of the people to give them support. The same people in those counties are the ones that claimed to have seats in the GPO, and never fired a shot. Now the same people are rewriting history to suit their ancestors. Bring on the comics.

tdv123

Thanks for the replies lads, great help. So I'm getting the impression from these responses that he was after all a man Irish people should be very proud of. Would those books be available in all book stores?

Sorry if I'm ignorant on this issue but I've just recently got into the history of all this WOI, 1916 & the Civil war. Which I'm now fascinated by.

Why do most countries celebrate there war heroes but a lot of our people don't? Fair enough Gay Byrne is entitled to his opinion but why not say the same about Michael Collins? Both Barry & Collins used identical tactics. Is it just because Barry was an easier target?

tdv123

Also can I post a subject on another person I want to find out more about or do I have to wait a while before starting another thread.

Busted Flat.

tdv123 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, great help. Would those books be available all in book stores?

Sorry if I'm ignorant on this issue but I've just recently got into the history of all this WOI, 1916 & the Civil war.

Why do most countries celebrate there war heroes but a lot of our people don't? Fair enough Gay Byrne is entitled to his opinion but why not say the same about Michael Collins? Both Barry & Collins used identical tactics. Is it just because Barry was an easier target?

Do not depend on the likes of gabo or his likes, for history lessons. gaybo put people up on a pedestal, on his show, like the bishops, casey, and cummisky, priests like the one that was in charge of the Artain Band, and a lot of his other heros. Do not forget Ainne Murphy, and the latchicos he filled the audience with.

roundymac

Gabo's politics are FF orientated, he CJ as a special guest on his final radio show, also he is a Dub out and out. Dublin is Ireland I think would be a fair comment for him.

Neutronale

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do not depend on the likes of gabo or his likes, for history lessons. gaybo put people up on a pedestal, on his show, like the bishops, casey, and cummisky, priests like the one that was in charge of the Artain Band, and a lot of his other heros. Do not forget Ainne Murphy, and the latchicos he filled the audience with.

When the poor ole pope came to Ireland
Way back in that holy time
Eamon Casey and Michael Cleary served the mass and poured the wine
Two jockey boys they'd ride for Ireland While teaching us morality
Sure god love them they're only human
Annie Murphy might not agree

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, great help. So I'm getting the impression from these responses that he was after all a man Irish people should be very proud of. Would those books be available in all book stores?

Sorry if I'm ignorant on this issue but I've just recently got into the history of all this WOI, 1916 & the Civil war. Which I'm now fascinated by.

Why do most countries celebrate there war heroes but a lot of our people don't? Fair enough Gay Byrne is entitled to his opinion but why not say the same about Michael Collins? Both Barry & Collins used identical tactics. Is it just because Barry was an easier target?

The truth is probably somewhere between Gaybos 'analysis' and the sometimes overly-romanticised accounts that came out until recently.

Maybe he was everything Gaybo said he was, but maybe that's what was needed at the time. He certainly seems to have been a highly effective commander.

I found this to be a 'good' (as in thought provoking, rather than entertaining!) read on the IRA in Cork City during that period. It certainly removes any idea of the 'romance' of the period.....

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

The truth is probably somewhere between Gaybos 'analysis' and the sometimes overly-romanticised accounts that came out until recently.

Maybe he was everything Gaybo said he was, but maybe that's what was needed at the time. He certainly seems to have been a highly effective commander.

I found this to be a 'good' (as in thought provoking, rather than entertaining!) read on the IRA in Cork City during that period. It certainly removes any idea of the 'romance' of the period.....

Hasnt this book been discredited. He made claims that the IRA killed and disappeared a dozen Camerons but the documentation revealed that only three were missing.

Murphy seems to have the same revisionist anti-republican agenda as Eoghan Harris and Peter Hart...

See also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83715469&postcount=1

Jawgap

Neutronale wrote: »

Hasnt this book been discredited. He made claims that the IRA killed and disappeared a dozen Camerons but the documentation revealed that only three were missing.

Murphy seems to have the same revisionist anti-republican agenda as Eoghan Harris and Peter Hart...

See also http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83715469&postcount=1

I'd be reluctant to lump him in with Hart and Harris who set out to, imo, to fit facts to their own agendas or previously held views.

I'd also not be inclined to agree with the idea it's revisionist - he kind of shines a light in places that have long existed but perhaps have not been acknowledged for obvious reasons and lays out the evidence he found. There was an initial furore, which he acknowledged was down to the mis-representation of some documents - this has been corrected in later editions. Some of his research was criticised for being superficial, but other parts achieved high praise, particularly his analysis of some the lesser used sources.

I thought it was well written, and, generally, thoroughly researched, and not as stuffy or, at the other extreme, as flowery as some other histories from the period.....ymmv:)

jonniebgood1

tdv123 wrote: »

Also can I post a subject on another person I want to find out more about or do I have to wait a while before starting another thread.

There is no problem with you starting a thread on a different topic.

Cork boy 55

Are you Sure Gay Byrne said that ?
I recall it was Harris that called them gangsters?
Maybe it was both.

GRMA

Jawgap wrote: »

The truth is probably somewhere between Gaybos 'analysis' and the sometimes overly-romanticised accounts that came out until recently.

Maybe he was everything Gaybo said he was, but maybe that's what was needed at the time. He certainly seems to have been a highly effective commander.

I found this to be a 'good' (as in thought provoking, rather than entertaining!) read on the IRA in Cork City during that period. It certainly removes any idea of the 'romance' of the period.....

lol

Thats a load of utter rubbish that has been totally discredited. Revisionist crap

tdv123

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Are you Sure Gay Byrne said that ?
I recall it was Harris that called them gangsters?
Maybe it was both.

He didn't mention Barry or anybody by name just the column itself. I'm positive it was the West Cork Brigade. It was on a newstalk interview from about 2 years ago. I'll try & find some sources of what he actually said. I'm about 99% sure he called them "a murder gang" or a "bunch of murderous gangsters".

Busted Flat.

tdv123 wrote: »

He didn't mention Barry or anybody by name just the column itself. I'm positive it was the West Cork Brigade. It was on a newstalk interview from about 2 years ago. I'll try & find some sources of what he actually said. I'm about 99% sure he called them "a murder gang" or a "bunch of murderous gangsters".

Graybo thinks that wars are won, by telling your enemy you are off my Christmas card list. Sadly for those that took up arms and had to fight, a rough and tough war, that the likes of him could not contemplate, some survived and lived to give their account, which graybo takes every opportunity to destroy.
The end of the war gave him the opportunity to live off the free state with his enormous largess. Sad little people like him became popular, due to the fact we did not have any other source of entertainment. A sad little man like him, would be like something Barry would wipe of his boots in the grass.

ganger

Well said/written, Busted Flat

.jacksparrow.

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Graybo thinks that wars are won, by telling your enemy you are off my Christmas card list. Sadly for those that took up arms and had to fight, a rough and tough war, that the likes of him could not contemplate, some survived and lived to give their account, which graybo takes every opportunity to destroy.
The end of the war gave him the opportunity to live off the free state with his enormous largess. Sad little people like him became popular, due to the fact we did not have any other source of entertainment. A sad little man like him, would be like something Barry would wipe of his boots in the grass.

Excellent post!

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd be reluctant to lump him in with Hart and Harris who set out to, imo, to fit facts to their own agendas or previously held views.

I'd also not be inclined to agree with the idea it's revisionist - he kind of shines a light in places that have long existed but perhaps have not been acknowledged for obvious reasons and lays out the evidence he found. There was an initial furore, which he acknowledged was down to the mis-representation of some documents - this has been corrected in later editions. Some of his research was criticised for being superficial, but other parts achieved high praise, particularly his analysis of some the lesser used sources.

I thought it was well written, and, generally, thoroughly researched, and not as stuffy or, at the other extreme, as flowery as some other histories from the period.....ymmv:)

Absolutely damning and excellent review here:http://www.academia.edu/485160/History_Ireland_Book_Review_Gerard_Murphy_The_Year_of_Disappearances

If Murphy is not a convinced revisionist and Harrisite I am at a loss as to why he would set out to take this approach, why would he want to prove the IRA was sectarian?

If he has twisted the evidence in the way in which the above review states he is in danger of not being taken seriously as a historian...

Jawgap

Neutronale wrote: »

Absolutely damning and excellent review here:http://www.academia.edu/485160/History_Ireland_Book_Review_Gerard_Murphy_The_Year_of_Disappearances

If Murphy is not a convinced revisionist and Harrisite I am at a loss as to why he would set out to take this approach, why would he want to prove the IRA was sectarian?

If he has twisted the evidence in the way in which the above review states he is in danger of not being taken seriously as a historian...

He's not a historian and I'm not sure he's claimed to be - this was his first non-fiction book.

I think in interviews he described hearing stories when growing up in Carrignavar about the killings and decided to investigate the folklore - and I'd agree with some reviews that suggest sometimes the book doesn't know whether it's a historical narrative or a historical novel.

But just because it's controversial, doesn't mean it is without merit - I thought it was a good read and I didn't get the impression he was setting out to do anything in particular except explore the evidence, see where it led and how it measured up to the stories he was told as a kid. I think where the book is at its weakest is where stories, not contradicted by evidence are assumed to be true.

Borgonovo's review is referenced in this review to which Murphy himself responded.

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

Absolutely damning and excellent review here:http://www.academia.edu/485160/History_Ireland_Book_Review_Gerard_Murphy_The_Year_of_Disappearances

If Murphy is not a convinced revisionist and Harrisite I am at a loss as to why he would set out to take this approach, why would he want to prove the IRA was sectarian?

If he has twisted the evidence in the way in which the above review states he is in danger of not being taken seriously as a historian...

Have you read the book by Gerard Murphy?

Murphy's response to the critical review by Borgonovo needs to be referenced in conjunction with your quoted review:

I was a little disappointed with John Borgonovo’s review of my book The Year of Disappearances that appeared in the January/February edition of HI. I would have expected more in the line of constructive criticism rather than the dismissal that the book received. My book, he asserts ‘cannot be presented as serious scholarship; it is a work in which ‘speculation replaces sound historic methodology’. Borgonovo’s method of criticism was to quickly run through the various elements of the book while asserting that I produce no evidence to support any of them. In each instance he ignored the evidence that I did provide. It is not possible to go through all his assertions in a letter of this length, so a few examples will have to suffice.

He states that Martin Corry is an unreliable witness who frequently exaggerated his War of Independence experiences and that I don’t question his credibility. Yet the first eight chapters of my book are spent in doing precisely that. Corry’s claims that a large number of people were shot out of the brigade prison at Knockraha are substantiated by other members of the 1st Cork Brigade, including his own commanding officer, Michael Leahy. As for the actual number killed, Corry himself in his IRA pension application form claimed that his group executed 27 prisoners during the War of Independence. It is well known that IRA pension applications were vetted by having their claims authenticated by senior veterans of the conflict. It is fair to assume that if Corry claimed to have executed 27 people that this number was agreed by his superiors in the Old IRA. 35 might have been an exaggeration, 27 is not.

Another example of Mr. Borgonovo’s method is his statement that the only evidence I produce on the abduction of half a dozen Cork city merchants on St Patrick’s Day 1922 are three newspaper reports. In fact, this story was carried by no less than six newspapers and was even picked up by the Press Association and ran, off and on, in these newspapers for the next week – though the men are not named. It is also supported by the accounts of IRA veterans who predated it to make it look as if it occurred a year earlier. John Borgonovo knows this as well as I do. After all, he wrote a whole book trying to prove that these men were killed in the spring of 1921, something he failed to prove. Based on Liam de Roiste’s diary entry of 23 March 1922, he then states that the men abducted on 17 March 1922 were in fact two local IRA officers arrested for joining the Gardai. It is true that two IRA men called Hallinan and Kelleher were arrested around that date after making a visit to Dublin to join the Civic Guard but these were not the six ‘prominent citizens’ taken on St Patrick’s Day. (Kidnappings were almost a daily occurrence during those weeks.) Mrs Parsons, inquiring about the fate of her son (a fifteen-year old) who disappeared the same week was told at IRA HQ in Union Quay barracks to hold out no hope as 'a lot' had been shot around that time.

Mr. Borgonovo stated that I could not uncover ‘blatant anti-Masonic and anti-Protestant sentiments amid thousands of pages of O’Donoghue material’. I think the reasons for that are fairly obvious. Maybe he should spread his wings a little and have another look at the correspondence emanating from the 1st Southern Division in the Mulcahy and indeed the Lankford papers. There’s plenty anti-Masonic stuff in there. Besides, what was O’Donoghue doing ‘updating’ his lists of Freemasons as late as 1930 when he was no longer a member of the IRA? Mr. Borgonovo’s review is full of such examples of partial reporting of the evidence presented in my book. To rebut them all would require me writing the book all over again.

As I have said previously, my book is a book of evidence, not a book of conclusions. I work from the standpoint of scientific methodology. What evidence I have, I put out there on the basis that it is falsifiable. (In other words that it can be proven wrong, if it is wrong - for those who don't understand what the word 'falsifiable' means.) My hope is to provide stimulus to others to further investigate the subject as new information becomes available. I was surprised at the tenor of John Borgonovo’s review, considering that my work augments his own and explains a lot of the puzzling ambiguities that his data, based largely on the accounts of Old IRA veterans, throws up. Suggesting that this is not a work of serious scholarship, when I use considerably more sources than he does, is not just being disingenuous, it is also plain wrong.

Gerard Murphy
Updated 23 October 2011
http://year-of-disappearances.blogspot.ie/2011/10/reply-to-john-borgonovo.html

Regardless of whether people agree or not with Murphy he is investigating/ writing about something that seems to be a 'no-go' area amongst some historians/ people.

GRMA

Yeah, making stuff up is generally a no go area for historians.

jonniebgood1

GRMA wrote: »

Yeah, making stuff up is generally a no go area for historians.

Example so...

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Have you read the book by Gerard Murphy?

Murphy's response to the critical review by Borgonovo needs to be referenced in conjunction with your quoted review:

Regardless of whether people agree or not with Murphy he is investigating/ writing about something that seems to be a 'no-go' area amongst some historians/ people.

I find Murphy's reply to Borgonovo unconvincing.

Also I'd easily take a historians word over that of a fiction writer.

I dont believe any issue is no-go, as long as its honest and not the usual revisionist attempt to blacken the name of good men...

thecommietommy

tdv123 wrote: »

Would he have played a minimal role, a moderate roll or a big role?

I don't know much about him except about Crossbarry with his Column encirclement escape. Is he same guy responsible for Kilmichael ambush?

Is there any books about him?

Also how highly/lowly people on here think about.

I remember Gay Byrne on radio interview calling the west cork brigade a buch of "murderous gangsters" Would many people here share Gay's point?

Typically Byrne wouldn't refer to the British army who looted and burned down the centre of Cork and many other towns and villages across the country as "murderous gangsters".

Busted Flat.

Neutronale wrote: »

I find Murphy's reply to Borgonovo unconvincing.

Also I'd easily take a historians word over that of a fiction writer.

I dont believe any issue is no-go, as long as its honest and not the usual revisionist attempt to blacken the name of good men...

Depending which side they are learning, or which foot they kick with. There are historians who, publish their version of events, even though they depend on sometimes third hand information.

Rebelheart

tdv123 wrote: »

I remember Gay Byrne on radio interview calling the west cork brigade a buch of "murderous gangsters"

From the person who invited Gerry Adams onto the Late Late in October 1994 and refused to shake his hand, and then presided over a lynch mob (headed by the Sunday Independent's clearly unstable Hugh Leonard), few people in Ireland could have doubts about that lack of class of Mr Gabriel Byrne. And that's not even mentioning how he treated poor Annie Murphy, the sarcastic, patronising parasite of our airwaves for the past 50 years.

To contextualise Mr Byrne's treatment of Gerry Adams, it should be remembered that Mr Byrne is the son of a member of the British Army. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

GRMA

Rebelheart wrote: »

From the person who invited Gerry Adams onto the Late Late in October 1994 and refused to shake his hand, and then presided over a lynch mob (headed by the Sunday Independent's clearly unstable Hugh Leonard), few people in Ireland could have doubts about that lack of class of Mr Gabriel Byrne. And that's not even mentioning how he treated poor Annie Murphy, the sarcastic, patronising parasite of our airwaves for the past 50 years.

To contextualise Mr Byrne's treatment of Gerry Adams, it should be remembered that Mr Byrne is the son of a member of the British Army. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

That late late can be seen on youtube - its great viewing mainly because Gerry Adams was far too clever and articulate for them

Neutronale

http://youtu.be/pxw4a0e_NmU

gobnaitolunacy

Rebelheart wrote: »

To contextualise Mr Byrne's treatment of Gerry Adams, it should be remembered that Mr Byrne is the son of a member of the British Army. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

Generalise much? Tom Barry was in the British Army as well, and the son of an RIC man to boot.

BTW Gaybo was/is a presenter of radio and t.v shows, NOT a historian. Whatever anyone thinks of his 'style' and, personally I'm not a fan, he didn't get to the lofty heights of Montrose by asking guests nice 'safe' questions. To be successful in that game you have to be controversial and a 'sh*t-stirrer'. I don't see his successor Tubbers as being in the same mould, perhaps people were easier to shock back then too....

Busted Flat.

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Generalise much? Tom Barry was in the British Army as well, and the son of an RIC man to boot.

BTW Gaybo was/is a presenter of radio and t.v shows, NOT a historian. Whatever anyone thinks of his 'style' and, personally I'm not a fan, he didn't get to the lofty heights of Montrose by asking guests nice 'safe' questions. To be successful in that game you have to be controversial and a 'sh*t-stirrer'. I don't see his successor Tubbers as being in the same mould, perhaps people were easier to shock back then too....

He got there because we had only one station, not by talent, and has shown himself as a bigot. Look back on the Ainne Murphy show, and the audience that was stacked with priests. Look back when he glorified the pervert who was in control of the Artain Band.

tdv123

Couldn't find the interview anywhere the only other mention of it I could find was here http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/160736-gay-byrne-describes-3rd-west-cork-brigade-gangsters.html which was posted the day after the radio broadcast.

Just watched the late late Gay set up Adams on. He really is a twat.

jonniebgood1

tdv123 wrote: »

Just watched the late late Gay set up Adams on. He really is a twat.

Infraction.

Moderator.

jonniebgood1

Folks...

If this is a thread about Gay Byrne then it should be in the Television forum of boards. Namecalling is not allowed and in any case if there is any more about him the thread will be over.

Moderator.

se conman

Nearly finished Tom's book "Guerrilla day's in Ireland", by his own admission, he was no different or better than several other men of the area but what really hits me is the strength of will of these men. They are ALL special. This was VERY close quarter war fare and carrying out these deeds so close with the resulting mess for want of a better word) while exhausted from marching and half starved would put most people in the lunatic asylum of the time. Regardless of which "side" you are on, I feel they must be admired for the strength of their conviction. How important was Tom Barry ? Very important. If he had not been there would things have been any different ? I think West Cork would have acted the same with or without Tom Barry.

Busted Flat.

se conman wrote: »

Nearly finished Tom's book "Guerrilla day's in Ireland", by his own admission, he was no different or better than several other men of the area but what really hits me is the strength of will of these men. They are ALL special. This was VERY close quarter war fare and carrying out these deeds so close with the resulting mess for want of a better word) while exhausted from marching and half starved would put most people in the lunatic asylum of the time. Regardless of which "side" you are on, I feel they must be admired for the strength of their conviction. How important was Tom Barry ? Very important. If he had not been there would things have been any different ? I think West Cork would have acted the same with or without Tom Barry.

Good post, the revisionist's would like to think, the war was like a walk in the park, they sit there in their little high chairs and dream, clowns like them will not change history. Talk to young people from the age of 30 down, you will be surprised of what they think.These are people who were educated and studied the past, after the scum that wanted to change history to suit their own personal failure's. I will mention no names.

An Coilean

tdv123 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads, great help. So I'm getting the impression from these responses that he was after all a man Irish people should be very proud of. Would those books be available in all book stores?

Sorry if I'm ignorant on this issue but I've just recently got into the history of all this WOI, 1916 & the Civil war. Which I'm now fascinated by.

Why do most countries celebrate there war heroes but a lot of our people don't? Fair enough Gay Byrne is entitled to his opinion but why not say the same about Michael Collins? Both Barry & Collins used identical tactics. Is it just because Barry was an easier target?

There were a few less than savoury incidents in West Cork that make Barry less of a poster boy than Collins, The shooting of spies, the taking of hostages and the Kilmichael 'surrender' incident for example. In his defence it should be said that Barry was a damm sight more humane than the British forces opposing him. Barry was also on the 'wrong' side in the civil war and as such is likely to draw the ire of those with a more partitionist mentality.

Gee Bag

Meda Ryan's book about Tom Barry is a good read and it deals with a lot of the the criticism of his actions during the Was of Independence. She does a particulaly good line in smacking down Peter Hart.

By the by if anyone has read this did she kind of skim over the Civil War period? I had this impression the first time I read it. A friend borrowed the book from me and I haven't seen it since.

LennoxR

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Example so...

Yes, Gerard Murphy claimed that the Cork city IRA had killed 30 Protestant Freemasons in the period after the truce, because their names no longer appeared on roll of that organisation after 1922.

This he concluded meant they were all killed and secretly buried but that the IRA, the Free State government, the British government and the Freemasons themselves all hushed up the affair. Now you could also conclude given the lack of any other evidence at all, that the people in question just left the Freemasons in Cork for whatever reason. Mad stuff.

I thought Tom Barry's book was full of bombast and self-aggrandizement personally though. I think you have to read between the lines a bit - for instance the chapter where he talks about shooting a load of suspected informers in mid 1921 and says, 'they were all guilty beyond doubt'. Really Tom, you're sure? And Meda Ryan's leaves out the negative aspects altogether - eg Barry's alcoholism.

But I mean Barry was obviously an effective guerrilla leader and, Kilmichael aside (whatever happened there), not especially bloodthirsty. A gangster would surely have just taken up crime after the war, no?

Farmer Pudsey

As a military unit during the War of Independence the West Cork was effectively second only to Dublin. He was an effective military commander however he lacked the political vision of Collins. He believed that it was possible to military defeat the British. In the 1990's Gerry Adam's and Martin McGuinness discovered that Collins was right that a military victory was impossible.

Was he ruthless yes so was Collins, Dan Breen and Sean Treacy. However unlike Collins and afterwards Breen he failed to see that a military solution was impossible. DeValera knew this as well and accepted the treaty in the end.

An Coilean

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

As a military unit during the War of Independence the West Cork was effectively second only to Dublin. He was an effective military commander however he lacked the political vision of Collins. He believed that it was possible to military defeat the British. In the 1990's Gerry Adam's and Martin McGuinness discovered that Collins was right that a military victory was impossible.

Was he ruthless yes so was Collins, Dan Breen and Sean Treacy. However unlike Collins and afterwards Breen he failed to see that a military solution was impossible. DeValera knew this as well and accepted the treaty in the end.

I would not agree with that assessment, it has been said of Barry that he had the clearest idea of how to beat the British of any IRA officer in Ireland, he freely admited that at the time of the truce the IRA had come no where near even striking distance of a military defeat of British forces, however that is not to say that a military victory was not possible.

British forces in Ireland were severly streched by mid 1921 and several of the Highest ranking officers in the British general staff were voicing concerns that if the IRA was not beaten in the summer of 1921, then they would not be beaten at all. It was getting increasingly difficult to maintain the numbers of troops in Ireland while also managing commitments in the rest of the Empire.
The arms situation was poor on the IRA side, however in terms of manpower the preceding years of war had left the IRA with a pool of experienced officers and men that could quickly be turned into an effective army of some potential should they have been able to pull of the arms landings that were being prepared at the time of the truce.

I don't think that the war would have continued to a point where we would ever have seen a surrender of the British army in the field, but we could have seen the IRA continue to build in strenght and extend the war through divisional flying colums that could have opporated in what had previously been quiet areas to further increase pressure on the British forces through the winter of 1921/22 that would have made an end to the war on much more favorable terms to the Irish a near inevitability.

The limited resources of the post Great war British Army and its commitments throughout the Empire coupled with mounting public oposition at home simply would not have allowed the British government to continue with the war in my opinion.

Dionysius2

Neutronale wrote: »

When the poor ole pope came to Ireland
Way back in that holy time
Eamon Casey and Michael Cleary served the mass and poured the wine
Two jockey boys they'd ride for Ireland While teaching us morality
Sure god love them they're only human
Annie Murphy might not agree

And Fr Fortune rolled the dice......the Sacred Heart was in great hands....eh?

Farmer Pudsey

An Coilean wrote: »

I would not agree with that assessment, it has been said of Barry that he had the clearest idea of how to beat the British of any IRA officer in Ireland, he freely admited that at the time of the truce the IRA had come no where near even striking distance of a military defeat of British forces, however that is not to say that a military victory was not possible.

British forces in Ireland were severly streched by mid 1921 and several of the Highest ranking officers in the British general staff were voicing concerns that if the IRA was not beaten in the summer of 1921, then they would not be beaten at all. It was getting increasingly difficult to maintain the numbers of troops in Ireland while also managing commitments in the rest of the Empire.
The arms situation was poor on the IRA side, however in terms of manpower the preceding years of war had left the IRA with a pool of experienced officers and men that could quickly be turned into an effective army of some potential should they have been able to pull of the arms landings that were being prepared at the time of the truce.

I don't think that the war would have continued to a point where we would ever have seen a surrender of the British army in the field, but we could have seen the IRA continue to build in strenght and extend the war through divisional flying colums that could have opporated in what had previously been quiet areas to further increase pressure on the British forces through the winter of 1921/22 that would have made an end to the war on much more favorable terms to the Irish a near inevitability.

The limited resources of the post Great war British Army and its commitments throughout the Empire coupled with mounting public oposition at home simply would not have allowed the British government to continue with the war in my opinion.

After the burning of the Customs House the Dublin Brigade best men were captured it was effectively finished as a fighting force. For how much longer could Collins kept the British Intelligence force at bay is a question that would decide the fate of the war. He has another shooting of British Intelligence officers planned however it might only have set back British Intelligence a while. Collins himself considered that the situtation in Dublin was perilous. He also knew that the arms and ammo was very low. He would have had the best idea of any of the top people of the perilous situation. He also considered that it was impossible to restart the war as the identies of the Military leaders was now known.

An Coilean

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

After the burning of the Customs House the Dublin Brigade best men were captured it was effectively finished as a fighting force. For how much longer could Collins kept the British Intelligence force at bay is a question that would decide the fate of the war. He has another shooting of British Intelligence officers planned however it might only have set back British Intelligence a while. Collins himself considered that the situtation in Dublin was perilous. He also knew that the arms and ammo was very low. He would have had the best idea of any of the top people of the perilous situation. He also considered that it was impossible to restart the war as the identies of the Military leaders was now known.

That is quite a Dublin centric view of the War, while the customs house was a blow to the dublin brigade, to say it was finished is well wide of the mark, as for the leaders in Dublin, the IRA was a difuse organisation, the capture of the entire GHQ, an achievement the British never even came close to realising would still have had only a minor effect on the units fighting outside of Dublin.
GHQ did not organise attacks or provide arms, the local units in all areas did that for themselves.

The capture of key officers in GHQ may have been a setback in Dublin, and a coup for the British, but in terms of the actual fighting on the ground in the country, it would have made little difference.

Farmer Pudsey

An Coilean wrote: »

That is quite a Dublin centric view of the War, while the customs house was a blow to the dublin brigade, to say it was finished is well wide of the mark, as for the leaders in Dublin, the IRA was a difuse organisation, the capture of the entire GHQ, an achievement the British never even came close to realising would still have had only a minor effect on the units fighting outside of Dublin.
GHQ did not organise attacks or provide arms, the local units in all areas did that for themselves.

The capture of key officers in GHQ may have been a setback in Dublin, and a coup for the British, but in terms of the actual fighting on the ground in the country, it would have made little difference.

Due to Collins intelligence network the British secret service were blind. previous to this it depended on the Irish Special Branch allow it to gather information on Irish rebels. This is what finished the Fenians as a force. At different stages Irish HQ send orders to shoot certain RIC officers as these were the local eyes and ears of the establishment.

When an IRA officer was capture and was in Spike Island it was he ordered the shooting of a RIC DI who was on the way to identify him. The same happened with other RIC dectives that went to ground such Swansey, the killers of Thomas McCurtain and the British Officer who ordered the Listowel RIC to shoot and ask questions after.

He forced the British Army to be a blunt instrument and forced most RIC officers to take a neutral stance by late 1920. At one stage I believe an order was issued that the shooting RIC officer's in certain area's was not to happen unless HQ scantioned in case an RIC man that wsa in his employee was killed after one was shot by a local unit.

If the West cork Brigade had been wiped out could the war against the british continue yes, if Collins Intelligence squad wsa wiped out could it continue I do not think so.

Look at the Civil war even though the Free State has less of a professional army it won the war in about 10 months even after losing it two most important leaders Griffits and Collins. This was due to local intelligence that could be collated nationally