Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A disgraceful piece of television!
Options
-
15-11-2013 10:06pm#1Just watched "Executed" on T na G [19.30 today] and I have to say it was very slanted stuff indeed.
It concerned the shooting of four anti treaty rebels by the state after their supporters had shot dead a TD on his way to the Dail.
This shooting of the four [or killing if you like], and others that followed it, was undoubtedly extra judicial and illegal but it did have the effect of ending the civil war.
It's one of the great moral dilemmas of history but what shifts the balance in favour of the pro-treaty side [INMHO] is the fact that a majority of the members of the Dail voted for it before the formation of the state and a majority of the people voted for it afterwards.
This seminal fact was denigrated by one of the contributors without any opposing opinion being proffered.
The programme ended with a statement that really made my eyes water: "They executed them not to save the people but to save the state"
Lights then faded and credits rolled without any semblance of a contrary opinion being offered.
If I didn't know better I'd have thought I was watching a 1930's FF puff piece or perhaps a modern Óglaigh na hÉireann recrimination production.
Altogether very poor value for the taxes 100% of us pay for the 4% who regularly watch this rubbish!0
Comments
-
If you want another view of the past promoted you might possibly get lucky, now and again ,with RTE, the Irish Times or any Independent newspaper. ;-)0
-
HansHolzel wrote: »If you want another view of the past promoted you might possibly get lucky, now and again ,with RTE, the Irish Times or any Independent newspaper. ;-)
All I would ask of any media is that it be well researched and balanced.
This piece brought nothing new to the table and I fail to see why it was commissioned.
But then T na G do seem to exist to regurgitate the past to no good purpose.0 -
The day you see somebody saying in a big spread in a paper or on a big programme on TV that the Treaty was democratically accepted (in the 26 Counties), the Oath was a red herring and the real, practical crime (of Republicans and Blueshirts) was that they abandoned the Catholics in the 6 Counties (who got no vote on the Treaty), then you'll know you're not being fed a spin anymore.0
-
The shooting of the four leading republicans was a reprisal and was nothing less than cold blooded murder.
However the fact remains a clear majority had voted in the 1922 general election which immediately preceded the outbreak of the Civil for either Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin or other political parties that supported the 1921 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The die-hard Republicans may well have been in control of the majority of the IRA but they most certainly did not have the support of the majority of the Irish people in the 26 counties.
De Valera was the political leader of the Republicans but he found himself an isolated figure as Liam Lynch became military leader of the Anti-Treaty IRA.
It was clear as day when the Civil War began that the National Army were far better organized and far better armed and by the end of the Civil War their position was to improve as their numbers swelled to the tens of thousands.
The Anti-Treaty goals were unclear and amounted to nihilistic despair rather than any real vision of uniting Nationalism, overturning the Treaty and achieving a 32 county Republic.
By the end of the Civil War some of the Republican fugitives still on the loose were living like tramps as people who once offered them sanctuary during the fight against the British closed their doors to them because they were sick of the fighting.
Liam Lynch was to die a lonely death on a Tipperary mountain side and many of the most talented Irish Republicans were put up against a wall and shot by execution squads.
The execution of 77 Republicans and the summary executions of many others including men blown up by mines in Co. Kerry was the result of a dangerous clique of proto-fascist Free State officers going on a bloodthirsty power trip.
When Dev and the Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil in the late 1920s they achieved far more than the die-hard militarists and by 1932 were in power while the Free State leaders faced political oblivion.
The Civil War was utterly pointless - Republican militarism was self-defeating and the Free State executions of Republicans created a poisonous division between Irish nationalists that persists to this very day - and it played right into the hands of the British and the Unionists who were laughing while they consolidated control over the six counties.
The real victims of the Irish Civil War were the minority Catholic population of Northern Ireland who were abandoned to a sectarian gerrymander state while the Southern republicans fought like two bald men fighting over a comb.0 -
Balaclava1991 wrote: »The shooting of the four leading republicans was a reprisal and was nothing less than cold blooded murder.
However the fact remains a clear majority had voted in the 1922 general election which immediately preceded the outbreak of the Civil for either Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin or other political parties that supported the 1921 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The die-hard Republicans may well have been in control of the majority of the IRA but they most certainly did not have the support of the majority of the Irish people in the 26 counties.
De Valera was the political leader of the Republicans but he found himself an isolated figure as Liam Lynch became military leader of the Anti-Treaty IRA.
It was clear as day when the Civil War began that the National Army were far better organized and far better armed and by the end of the Civil War their position was to improve as their numbers swelled to the tens of thousands.
The Anti-Treaty goals were unclear and amounted to nihilistic despair rather than any real vision of uniting Nationalism, overturning the Treaty and achieving a 32 county Republic.
By the end of the Civil War some of the Republican fugitives still on the loose were living like tramps as people who once offered them sanctuary during the fight against the British closed their doors to them because they were sick of the fighting.
Liam Lynch was to die a lonely death on a Tipperary mountain side and many of the most talented Irish Republicans were put up against a wall and shot by execution squads.
The execution of 77 Republicans and the summary executions of many others including men blown up by mines in Co. Kerry was the result of a dangerous clique of proto-fascist Free State officers going on a bloodthirsty power trip.
When Dev and the Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil in the late 1920s they achieved far more than the die-hard militarists and by 1932 were in power while the Free State leaders faced political oblivion.
The Civil War was utterly pointless - Republican militarism was self-defeating and the Free State executions of Republicans created a poisonous division between Irish nationalists that persists to this very day - and it played right into the hands of the British and the Unionists who were laughing while they consolidated control over the six counties.
The real victims of the Irish Civil War were the minority Catholic population of Northern Ireland who were abandoned to a sectarian gerrymander state while the Southern republicans fought like two bald men fighting over a comb.
Some very good points.... but.... what were the legitimate government
to do?
I read somewhere that their unspoken strategy was to condemn some of them to death and only execute them in response to an atrocity by the anti treaty faction. So the outside rebels effectively ended up killing their comrades inside by their own actions.
Callous, yes.
Brutal ...yes
Effective.... well the nonsense that was the civil war ended quite quickly afterwards.
I can't help feeling that the whole sorry episode was wrapped up in, and some how nurtured by, Dev's political ambitions.
During the Emergency he executed IRA men himself for pussyfooting with the Natzis, when he thought it would be perceived internationally as breaching our neutrality.
I would like someone to point out how this was morally different?0 -
Advertisement
-
Balaclava1991 wrote: »The shooting of the four leading republicans was a reprisal and was nothing less than cold blooded murder.
However the fact remains a clear majority had voted in the 1922 general election which immediately preceded the outbreak of the Civil for either Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin or other political parties that supported the 1921 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The die-hard Republicans may well have been in control of the majority of the IRA but they most certainly did not have the support of the majority of the Irish people in the 26 counties.
De Valera was the political leader of the Republicans but he found himself an isolated figure as Liam Lynch became military leader of the Anti-Treaty IRA.
It was clear as day when the Civil War began that the National Army were far better organized and far better armed and by the end of the Civil War their position was to improve as their numbers swelled to the tens of thousands.
The Anti-Treaty goals were unclear and amounted to nihilistic despair rather than any real vision of uniting Nationalism, overturning the Treaty and achieving a 32 county Republic.
By the end of the Civil War some of the Republican fugitives still on the loose were living like tramps as people who once offered them sanctuary during the fight against the British closed their doors to them because they were sick of the fighting.
Liam Lynch was to die a lonely death on a Tipperary mountain side and many of the most talented Irish Republicans were put up against a wall and shot by execution squads.
The execution of 77 Republicans and the summary executions of many others including men blown up by mines in Co. Kerry was the result of a dangerous clique of proto-fascist Free State officers going on a bloodthirsty power trip.
When Dev and the Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil in the late 1920s they achieved far more than the die-hard militarists and by 1932 were in power while the Free State leaders faced political oblivion.
The Civil War was utterly pointless - Republican militarism was self-defeating and the Free State executions of Republicans created a poisonous division between Irish nationalists that persists to this very day - and it played right into the hands of the British and the Unionists who were laughing while they consolidated control over the six counties.
The real victims of the Irish Civil War were the minority Catholic population of Northern Ireland who were abandoned to a sectarian gerrymander state while the Southern republicans fought like two bald men fighting over a comb.
There is much to agree with in these well informed observations. We must not judge what happened tho' by the reasoning of the present day.0 -
Curly Judge wrote: »Some very good points.... but.... what were the legitimate government
to do?
Give prisoners due process and not execute them after a kangaroo court.
The so-called courts were a bunch of men meeting in some backroom poring over a list of prisoners and picking out a leading man to be shot in reprisal for a Republican attack.
That's no way to conducted war.I read somewhere that their unspoken strategy was to condemn some of them to death and only execute them in response to an atrocity by the anti treaty faction.
That's murder. Pure and simple.So the outside rebels effectively ended up killing their comrades inside by their own actions.
Callous, yes.
Brutal ...yes
Effective.... well the nonsense that was the civil war ended quite quickly afterwards.
It ended when the unarmed Gardaí established effective law and order and security and won the respect of the people.
It was not won by thugs in uniform and death squads.I can't help feeling that the whole sorry episode was wrapped up in, and some how nurtured by, Dev's political ambitions.
De Valera was seeking peace from day one. He never endorsed the militarism of Lynch and his supporters.
It was the militarists in the IRA and the National Army who had political ambitions.During the Emergency he executed IRA men himself for pussyfooting with the Natzis, when he thought it would be perceived internationally as breaching our neutrality.
The majority of people who were anti-Treaty were in favor of peaceful democratic politics.
The IRA during WW2 did not recognize any Irish democracy and the likes of Frank Ryan who collaborated with the Nazis believed the IRA were the de jure Irish government.
You can only imagine what kind of Quisling style regime they would have established in Ireland with Nazi police and troops backing them up.
I would like someone to point out how this was morally different?0 -
Balaclava1991 wrote: »Give prisoners due process and not execute them after a kangaroo court.
The so-called courts were a bunch of men meeting in some backroom poring over a list of prisoners and picking out a leading man to be shot in reprisal for a Republican attack.
That's no way to conducted war.
That's murder. Pure and simple.
It ended when the unarmed Gardaí established effective law and order and security and won the respect of the people.
It was not won by thugs in uniform and death squads.
De Valera was seeking peace from day one. He never endorsed the militarism of Lynch and his supporters.
It was the militarists in the IRA and the National Army who had political ambitions.
The majority of people who were anti-Treaty were in favor of peaceful democratic politics.
The IRA during WW2 did not recognize any Irish democracy and the likes of Frank Ryan who collaborated with the Nazis believed the IRA were the de jure Irish government.
You can only imagine what kind of Quisling style regime they would have established in Ireland with Nazi police and troops backing them up.
I would like someone to point out how this was morally different?
So...is it your point that De Valera was right in the Forties and O'Higgins and Mulcahy were wrong in the Twenties?
Or am I misreading you?0 -
Watched this back on TG4 player. Bit strange with the re-enactments and stuff, that always puts me off.
Its a messy issue, one that has caused many arguments and will continue to do so. We'll never know for sure, but in my own view you can't look at the timeline of events (the killing of Hales followed by the executions the following morning) and NOT think there is at least a large possibility the cabinet were acting in a hot-headed manner in reaction to the murder of a colleague.
You can argue all day about the legitimacy or justification of every killing in that time of war, whatever your opinions, the loss of intelligent, patriotic men on all sides during that period was a tragic and terrible loss for the country. I can't remember who said it, but those left in charge at the end of the civil war ended up being "the most conservative bunch to ever come through a revolution." Certainly, the likes of O'Higgins (again whatever one's political leanings) ended up with an inordinate amount of power relative to their position pre-War of Independence.
It is also awful to think that some of the greatest of our patriots, men who gave everything to achieve independence, never saw the fruit of their labours. Some of them were killed, some of them survived but left Ireland never to return which is almost worse.
Again, whatever side you feel you would have supported during the Civil War or whatever side your family would have leant towards (and I would have had family on both sides with strong opinions to this day.) my own view is that it was a pity that more of the Anti-Treaty leaders didn't recognise the Treaty for the stepping stone it was. I suppose, communication and the dispersal of information wasn't as easy back then. Some would have opposed it no matter what, but some who were initially anti-Treaty, changed their opinions on it having learned more. (the aforementioned Seán Hales for example.)
From this historical distance, it is very hard to comprehend or sympathise with the mindset of the Anti-Treaty leadership, when they decided (despite further conflict being obviously futile) to continue fighting at the meeting in March 1923. Liam Lynch is recognised as being the strongest influence behind this, he of course was killed 1 month later. The fact that military-minded and battle hardened men like Tom Barry and Liam Deasy were advocating ending the war at that stage says it all really.
Now, given that slight rant against anti-treaty opinion, I should add that I could write an essay on Free State conduct during the Civil War, which particularly in my own county was absolutely disgraceful. There is a book called "Tragedies of Kerry" by Dorothy McArdle, which is a contemporaneous account of the killings that took place in all their gory detail. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Civil War. It is rabidly Republican, but that doesn't lessen the horror of some of the acts carried out by the Free State forces during that period.
Overall a dark period in our history.0 -
ciarriaithuaidh wrote: »Watched this back on TG4 player. Bit strange with the re-enactments and stuff, that always puts me off.
Its a messy issue, one that has caused many arguments and will continue to do so. We'll never know for sure, but in my own view you can't look at the timeline of events (the killing of Hales followed by the executions the following morning) and NOT think there is at least a large possibility the cabinet were acting in a hot-headed manner in reaction to the murder of a colleague.
You can argue all day about the legitimacy or justification of every killing in that time of war, whatever your opinions, the loss of intelligent, patriotic men on all sides during that period was a tragic and terrible loss for the country. I can't remember who said it, but those left in charge at the end of the civil war ended up being "the most conservative bunch to ever come through a revolution." Certainly, the likes of O'Higgins (again whatever one's political leanings) ended up with an inordinate amount of power relative to their position pre-War of Independence.
It is also awful to think that some of the greatest of our patriots, men who gave everything to achieve independence, never saw the fruit of their labours. Some of them were killed, some of them survived but left Ireland never to return which is almost worse.
Again, whatever side you feel you would have supported during the Civil War or whatever side your family would have leant towards (and I would have had family on both sides with strong opinions to this day.) my own view is that it was a pity that more of the Anti-Treaty leaders didn't recognise the Treaty for the stepping stone it was. I suppose, communication and the dispersal of information wasn't as easy back then. Some would have opposed it no matter what, but some who were initially anti-Treaty, changed their opinions on it having learned more. (the aforementioned Seán Hales for example.)
From this historical distance, it is very hard to comprehend or sympathise with the mindset of the Anti-Treaty leadership, when they decided (despite further conflict being obviously futile) to continue fighting at the meeting in March 1923. Liam Lynch is recognised as being the strongest influence behind this, he of course was killed 1 month later. The fact that military-minded and battle hardened men like Tom Barry and Liam Deasy were advocating ending the war at that stage says it all really.
Now, given that slight rant against anti-treaty opinion, I should add that I could write an essay on Free State conduct during the Civil War, which particularly in my own county was absolutely disgraceful. There is a book called "Tragedies of Kerry" by Dorothy McArdle, which is a contemporaneous account of the killings that took place in all their gory detail. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Civil War. It is rabidly Republican, but that doesn't lessen the horror of some of the acts carried out by the Free State forces during that period.
Overall a dark period in our history.
Good post. Thank you.
I have to say that my sympathies are almost exclusively [and perhaps unfairly] with the government of the day.
The newly formed state, without as much as a pot to piss in, allowing itself the wanton extravagance of a civil war.
The destruction of the public records in the Four Courts.
The almost vandalistic destruction of infrastructure.
The killing of Michael Collins.
Burning out protestants whom we could well have made use of as fully valued citizens of our new state.
This ability to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory, while simultaneously shooting ourselves in the foot was so characteristic of Ireland down the centuries.
I still say that sleeveen De Valera poked the fire to a scandalous degree, although towards the end the rebels weren't even listening to him.0 -
Advertisement
-
Curly Judge wrote: »Just watched "Executed" on T na G [19.30 today] and I have to say it was very slanted stuff indeed.
It concerned the shooting of four anti treaty rebels by the state after their supporters had shot dead a TD on his way to the Dail.
This shooting of the four [or killing if you like], and others that followed it, was undoubtedly extra judicial and illegal but it did have the effect of ending the civil war.
It's one of the great moral dilemmas of history but what shifts the balance in favour of the pro-treaty side [INMHO] is the fact that a majority of the members of the Dail voted for it before the formation of the state and a majority of the people voted for it afterwards.
This seminal fact was denigrated by one of the contributors without any opposing opinion being proffered.
The programme ended with a statement that really made my eyes water: "They executed them not to save the people but to save the state"
Lights then faded and credits rolled without any semblance of a contrary opinion being offered.
If I didn't know better I'd have thought I was watching a 1930's FF puff piece or perhaps a modern Óglaigh na hÉireann recrimination production.
Altogether very poor value for the taxes 100% of us pay for the 4% who regularly watch this rubbish!
The Elections were not as straight forward.
Collins, like all politicians pulled as fast one. Instead of publishing the content of the New Constitution (1922, which bar the references to Britain was pretty interesting, and "secular") days before, he only published it on the day of the election.
That Dail majority was slight, and at least two would later run to the Anti Treatities
Threat of war with Britain hardly gave much alternatives
There were also certain promises on the North, (this is how Collins secured the Northies vote), regardless of a civil war or not, the Unionists were never going to give in, to suggest otherwise deservingly leads to one questioning the intelligence of that believer.
The purpose of the extra judicial executions were clear, (killing one from each province) was to send out a message to the dissenters. The problem is, there might not have been too many other options. The welfare of the State was at risk. Threat of British intervention was high (that might have united the pro and anti treaty again), but this time, with British miliatry no longer elsewhere, would have led to an awful war with planes and tanks
Contrary opinion? Why? Contrary Opinion and revisionists have had their say for a substantial period of time now.
100% of "us" don't pay taxes either.Far from it.0 -
Curly Judge wrote: »All I would ask of any media is that it be well researched and balanced.
This piece brought nothing new to the table and I fail to see why it was commissioned.
But then T na G do seem to exist to regurgitate the past to no good purpose.
What do you mean "balanced"?
To suit your agenda you mean?
There had been nothing on the Anti Treaty people like O'Connor before, or Lynch. You could have said this about ALOT of documentaries, if you have actually done your own research before. Not many ordinary viewers do or actually know anything about history
The 1916 stuff was reasonable, especially highlighting lesser known people
I suppose you prefer the made up, the unsupported or the revisionist angle?
The advantage of making a "one sided" programme allows the viewers to think for themselves and invoke a discussion.
Only an uneducated peasant, not worthy of discussing on a public site, could fail to understand and sympathise with the action of both sides, during Ireland's darkest hour. In fairness the documentary made it clear that the State were left with little moving room and were reluctant to execute. The show also shows that actions of Republicians were also taken on the basis of their principles and they were not seen as trigger happy louts.0 -
Curly Judge wrote: »Good post. Thank you.
I have to say that my sympathies are almost exclusively [and perhaps unfairly] with the government of the day.
The newly formed state, without as much as a pot to piss in, allowing itself the wanton extravagance of a civil war.
The destruction of the public records in the Four Courts.
The almost vandalistic destruction of infrastructure.
The killing of Michael Collins.
Burning out protestants whom we could well have made use of as fully valued citizens of our new state.
This ability to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory, while simultaneously shooting ourselves in the foot was so characteristic of Ireland down the centuries.
I still say that sleeveen De Valera poked the fire to a scandalous degree, although towards the end the rebels weren't even listening to him.
Eamonn De Valera was a mere puppet during the Civil War Period. You suggest that he had real power over the Anti Treatities at any stage is naive0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »What do you mean "balanced"?
To suit your agenda you mean?
There had been nothing on the Anti Treaty people like O'Connor before, or Lynch. You could have said this about ALOT of documentaries, if you have actually done your own research before. Not many ordinary viewers do or actually know anything about history
The 1916 stuff was reasonable, especially highlighting lesser known people
I suppose you prefer the made up, the unsupported or the revisionist angle?
The advantage of making a "one sided" programme allows the viewers to think for themselves and invoke a discussion.
Only an uneducated peasant, not worthy of discussing on a public site, could fail to understand and sympathise with the action of both sides, during Ireland's darkest hour. In fairness the documentary made it clear that the State were left with little moving room and were reluctant to execute. The show also shows that actions of Republicians were also taken on the basis of their principles and they were not seen as trigger happy louts.
Are you calling me an uneducated peasant?0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »Eamonn De Valera was a mere puppet during the Civil War Period. You suggest that he had real power over the Anti Treatities at any stage is naive
He stirred more than enough sh*t to get it going.
Like the jealousy of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, Dev was a case of "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven" but he did go on to realize that
"...in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense."
Only Collins and Dick Mulcahy (ironically enough) were willing to do anything about the North. The first was shot, the second was (1) tainted by the Civil War executions and (2) overruled on the North by Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Blythe.
More people left Ireland during Dev's rule than during the Famine but, in his great favour, he did manage to keep us out of the war and saved thousands of lives that would otherwise have been ended by German bombing.
His reply to Churchill in 1945 is the greatest Irish political speech of the twentieth century.0 -
I wish I'd found this before I had to do my 'why did Irish Nationalists fight each other in the civil war' essay. Good points all round. From my reading on the subject it would seem that there were tensions even before the treaty was signed. There were personality clashes evident between Brugha and Collins for instance while Collins was in London.
The treaty signing polarised opinion obviously but there was initially reluctance on both sides to start a war, however as the months passed and tensions increased with public rhetoric stoking the flames, the war became more unavoidable. The flash points at the barracks vacated by the British and the ensuing local stand offs between the two sides served to split the army. Once this happened the dye was cast.
Churchill's threat to to sort out the Anti Treaty side in the four courts forced Collins to act but really he had no other choice, a large armed militia roaming the county opposing the elected government could not be tolerated.
I finished my essay thus:
Both sides contended that they invoked the true spirit of Irish Nationalism, neither could or would agree to compromise. On the Pro-Treaty side were the Pragmatists, who believed that the terms of the Treaty though not ideal, offered a foundation for further advances. On the other, the Idealists who still insisted on fighting for their vision of the Republic, even after the people voted for the Treaty. The harsh reality had be faced for the Provisional government, in order to bring their fledgling country onto the world stage, there could only be one Government and one Policy.
Hopkinson attests that the war was ‘a necessary affirmation of the right to govern by democratic authority and the need to stand by the Treaty.’ The war that followed was bitter and futile. Ireland lost many of its able men including Michael Collins and divisions that were formed served as an open wound in Irish Politics for many years to come. (Hopkinson, Green against Green p11)
Not sure all of you would agree with me obviously, but that's what makes the world go round !!;)0 -
does tg4 have a pro-republican slant to its programmes ??0
-
-
-
Curly Judge wrote: »Just watched "Executed" on T na G [19.30 today] and I have to say it was very slanted stuff indeed.
It concerned the shooting of four anti treaty rebels by the state after their supporters had shot dead a TD on his way to the Dail.
Oh, so the four people executed were guilty of killing the TD in question? Interesting. Most rational people would point out that the four in question were in prison at the time Seán Hales was killed, and therefore they were murdered for a crime which they did not commit. Any you think TG4 is "disgraceful" for questioning this action by the Free State? Hello? Hello? Have you just emerged from a Brian Hayes Constituency meeting, or the British Embassy? Or Eoghan Harris/John Caden's office in about 1980?Curly Judge wrote: »This shooting of the four [or killing if you like], and others that followed it, was undoubtedly extra judicial and illegal but it did have the effect of ending the civil war.
Excellent. The "shooting (or killing, if you like)" by the IRA of many people since 1970 "was undoubtedly extra judicial and illegal but it did have the effect of" forcing the British to face down unionism and grant Sinn Féin power in a devolved Northern government...
Well done.Curly Judge wrote: »It's one of the great moral dilemmas of history..."
Oh indeed it is, indeed it is. And you're firmly flying the flag for your own side and hostile to any organisation which points out historical facts which do not placate your prejudices on the issue of "all men have the right to life, but kill any of my side and it's murder".
Disgraceful? An apologist for the murders - for they were murders - authorised by O'Higgins, Mulcahy etc, as you incontrovertibly are, would be laughed out of any civilised discussion by professional Irish historians (actually, some of them would just move away slowly from you).0 -
Advertisement
-
Rebelheart wrote: »Oh, so the four people executed were guilty of killing the TD in question? Interesting. Most rational people would point out that the four in question were in prison at the time Seán Hales was killed, and therefore they were murdered for a crime which they did not commit. Any you think TG4 is "disgraceful" for questioning this action by the Free State? Hello? Hello? Have you just emerged from a Brian Hayes Constituency meeting, or the British Embassy? Or Eoghan Harris/John Caden's office in about 1980?
Excellent. The "shooting (or killing, if you like)" by the IRA of many people since 1970 "was undoubtedly extra judicial and illegal but it did have the effect of" forcing the British to face down unionism and grant Sinn Féin power in a devolved Northern government...
Well done.
Oh indeed it is, indeed it is. And you're firmly flying the flag for your own side and hostile to any organisation which points out historical facts which do not placate your prejudices on the issue of "all men have the right to life, but kill any of my side and it's murder".
Disgraceful? An apologist for the murders - for they were murders - authorised by O'Higgins, Mulcahy etc, as you incontrovertibly are, would be laughed out of any civilised discussion by professional Irish historians (actually, some of them would just move away slowly from you).
My God!
What a evacuation of the bowels!
I'd like to thank you really.
This thread was dying on its feet but your diatribe might revive it.
A bit like the Vatican banning a book really?0 -
Curly Judge wrote: »My God!
What a evacuation of the bowels!
I'd like to thank you really.
This thread was dying on its feet but your diatribe might revive it.
A bit like the Vatican banning a book really?
Quite like your defence of the Free State murders of innocent Irish people. Given that you actually think you're on the morally superior side when justifying such murders, there are many people watching who'd like to see you elaborate on your moral values on this issue. You bottled it, however.Curly Judge wrote: »A bit like the Vatican banning a book really?
You could have chosen "a bit like the BBC banning reports on the North of Ireland", but you didn't. Another revealing statement of your prejudices.0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »
You could have chosen "a bit like the BBC banning reports on the North of Ireland", but you didn't. Another revealing statement of your prejudices.
Is there anything I'm not guilty of?0 -
Curly Judge wrote: »Is there anything I'm not guilty of?
How about: sticking to the subject and presenting a rational, historically-based argument why the TG4 presentation was historically inaccurate?0 -
Typed up a comment yesterday and it disappeared for some reason. Here we go again.
any discussion of this type of topic inevitably ends up in a pro- or anti-Treaty session that ignores a lot of other issues that existed at the time. I am going to added some elements to the narrative to raise some other relevent issues
1. All civil wars are vicious and bloody
2. The Provisional Government were a right-wing, reactionary, repressive regime that engaged in the widespread use of torture and murder during the civil war. The claim that they had no choice doesn't hold water. If they claimed the legitimacy of an elected democratic government then the onus was on them to conform to democratic norms in relation to the treatment of prisoners (irrespective of whether they were regarded as political prisioners or criminals)
3. A large scale class war was underway running in conjunction with the civil war that posed a major threat to the Provisional government.
4. The Provisional government used officially organised fascist gangs in the form of the 600 strong Special Infantry Corps and the unofficial fascists of the Farmers Freedom Force to suppress widespread strike action by workers in 1922 and 1923 (republican forces also suppressed strikes in 1922). The Free State troops were also used to suppress the Munster Soviets in the summer of 1922.
5. The actions of the government in murdering republican prisioners were two-fold - first to suppress the anti-treaty forces through widespread murder and intimidation - and secondly - to suppress the anti-treaty movement before it became part of (and subservient to) the more powerful workers movement in 1922/23. Indeed many within the Nationalist movement (both wings) were more concerned with defeating 'Bolshevism' than independence during this period
6. It is incorrect to claim that a majority of the population supported the Treaty. A more accurate assessment would be that the majority of the population voted for an end to the violence and war. Furthermore - while the LP was nominally supportive of the Treaty - many of the LP TDs elected in 1922 supported the anti-Treaty side - these TDs were primarily rank-and-file trade union activists who were leading strikes around the country. The LP only stood 18 candidates and got 17 elected with significant votes (the losing candidate lost by 13 votes). If the LP had run candidates in every constituency (and more than one candidate in many) they would likely have been at least the second biggest party in the state.
The normal pro- and anti-Treaty narrative of this period needs to be challanged - and is increasingly being challanged as research into the workers movement of the period uncovers increasing evidence that the labour movement was significantly more powerful and influential that has previously been discussed and debated.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
6. It is incorrect to claim that a majority of the population supported the Treaty.
Arithmetic had reached the 26 Counties by 1922.0 -
lies, damned lies and statisticsHansHolzel wrote: »Arithmetic had reached the 26 Counties by 1922.0 -
EDIT >>>Removed by moderator
anyway FYI if someone is anti IRA it doesn't mean they're anti-irish0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Rebelheart wrote: »EDIT >>>Removed by moderator
If there is a need for comments between any 2 users it can be done by PM. It certainly does not need to be aired here.
That goes for all users by the way or bans may follow.0
even the ones about motoring, nature, technology, gardening etc jeepers must keep a check on that
Advertisement