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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

How important was Tom Barry in the IWOI?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭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


  • #35
    Neutronale
    Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭Neutronale


    http://youtu.be/pxw4a0e_NmU


  • #36
    gobnaitolunacy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭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. :D

    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....


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


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

    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.


  • #38
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    tdv123 wrote: »

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

    Infraction.

    Moderator.


  • #40
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    se conman
    Registered Users Posts: 981 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    LennoxR
    Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭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?


  • #46
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Dionysius2
    Registered Users Posts: 342 ✭✭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?


  • #49
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    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.

    I apologize if I offended anyone. I didn't intend to turn this thread into a debate about Gay Byrne. I merely used the Gay reference to see if anybody else shared this mans views, thankfully that doesn't seem to be case. That's all I wanted to do. And the response of the users on here have been very insightful & interesting.


  • #53
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    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.

    .......

    I think sometimes it is a mistake to assume that because a commander excels at handling a small or medium sized unit that they will be effective handling larger units, and - most importantly - waging a campaign to achieve a strategic outcome.

    No doubt, Barry could lead, organise and fight and inflict damage far out of proportion to the size of his resources, but that doesn't mean he could win. Him and his men, would be almost impossible to defeat, but that isn't the same as being capable of winning.

    History is littered with great commanders who could fight but couldn't campaign (for various reasons) - the classic example is probably Lee, who could make war, as opposed to Grant, a much less gifted general, who could campaign.

    The other factor that is sometimes overlooked is the role of the emergent RAF. If, as seems likely, they would have been given a freer hand in any resumed war, Barry and the other commanders would have found it a different operational environment, but no doubt they would have adapted.


  • #54
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I think sometimes it is a mistake to assume that because a commander excels at handling a small or medium sized unit that they will be effective handling larger units, and - most importantly - waging a campaign to achieve a strategic outcome.

    No doubt, Barry could lead, organise and fight and inflict damage far out of proportion to the size of his resources, but that doesn't mean he could win. Him and his men, would be almost impossible to defeat, but that isn't the same as being capable of winning.

    History is littered with great commanders who could fight but couldn't campaign (for various reasons) - the classic example is probably Lee, who could make war, as opposed to Grant, a much less gifted general, who could campaign.

    The other factor that is sometimes overlooked is the role of the emergent RAF. If, as seems likely, they would have been given a freer hand in any resumed war, Barry and the other commanders would have found it a different operational environment, but no doubt they would have adapted.


    That is a fair point, but it should be bourn in mind that the West Cork IRA was a much larger unit than the 100 or so men under Barry's direct command and while largely unarmed, they were handled quite effectivly by the Brigade leadership in the larger war against the British beyond the activities of the Column.

    The question of how the IRA would have faired had they been able to import arms in large numbers, and how leaders like Barry would have coped with being in command of larger units is one that will never be answered, but it should also be rememberd that IRA did not just plan to make units in the active areas bigger, had an arms landing been successfuly staged, plans were in place for much of the landed arms to be distributed to other parts of the country.
    Had the IRA managed to land several thousand rifles, it was not a case of creating a sincle large force in the active areas of Munster under Barry or anyone else, but of extending the war into previously inactive areas to force the British to streach their resources over larger parts of the country and thus relieve the active areas in Munster.
    While Barry could have expected to recieve some arms and ammunition in the event of a successful arms landing, it would have been an increase to a force of several hundred rather than a force of several thousand, the trade off being that it would also have seen a reduction of opposing enemy forces in the Cork area as the British whould have had to counter increased IRA activity over more of the country and could no longer focus on swamping Cork with troops.

    It should be noted that even if this did happen, it would still not bring the IRA anywhere near to parity with the British Forces in Ireland, but it would have allowed for an expansion of the war which the British government simply could not have continued with, it was not a similar case to the North in the 70's where the British could allow the conflict to drag on for decades, the whole of Ireland was united in opposition to the British Governments actions and there was large and mounting public opposition in Britian its self, the British government had from the outset been promising a swift and decisive victory to the British Public, as that promise was shown to be hollow and stories of the atrocities commited in Ireland filtered through to the British public, opinion was turning against the government, the government in power was becoming very unpopular because of the War and the opposition was highly critical of their conduct with regard to Ireland, had the war continued it is in my opinion certain that the British Government would have faced a crisis and it is more likely that they would have lost power rather then being allowed to impliment the measures needed to increase dramatically the troop presence in Ireland.


  • #55
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I don't really like doing what ifs, but in the scenarios described the impact of air power needs to be considered - if the RAF had been brought to the fray in force then they would have enjoyed total air supremacy, meaning they could concentrate on army and ground support.

    It would have made it very difficult for even well armed and organised units to concentrate and attack in force or numbers; it also would have made movement or training in daylight problematic.

    It might also be worth considering that an expansion of the IRA would have introduced previously unencountered problems. A larger more active force requires more frequent re-supply; if it goes beyond being effectively part-time, it requires billeting; if it engages in wider or more prolonged engagements, it needs medical support......and to provide all that would mean gaining, holding and defending territory

    All of which would have compromised its greatest asset, its mobility.

    anyway, thankfully it never happened - even Percival and Monty realised they couldn't inflict a military defeat without going to the sort of extremes that characterised the Boer War, which they lacked the capacity to do.


  • #56
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    If you look at WWII what were the two events that allowed the British and Americans to win the was. One of the most important advantages they had was that they captured the German enigma code machines and they cracked the Japanese codes early in the war.

    This allowed them a massive intelligence advantage, If the reverse had happened how might the war have ended.

    It was the same with the Irish intelligence war in the War Of Independence. Because Collins had a better intelligence set up he could control Dublin if that had ended it would have been near impossible to sustain the war.


  • #57
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    If you look at WWII what were the two events that allowed the British and Americans to win the was. One of the most important advantages they had was that they captured the German enigma code machines and they cracked the Japanese codes early in the war.

    This allowed them a massive intelligence advantage, If the reverse had happened how might the war have ended.

    It was the same with the Irish intelligence war in the War Of Independence. Because Collins had a better intelligence set up he could control Dublin if that had ended it would have been near impossible to sustain the war.

    The two events were qualitatively different.

    The elimination of the Cairo Gang by Collins temporarily removed a threat - no doubt the Cairo Gang would have been followed by another team who, would have been more careful and probably a lot more ruthless in their pursuit of Collins and the leadership.

    The breaking of the German naval and army codes by the British and Polish, and the breaking of the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes by the Americans put the Allies inside the decision processes of the Axis (in some cases) - it gave them an informational advantage that hastened the end of the War, but it wasn't critical to the outcome. As soon as Germany kicked the door in on the USSR and declared war on the US, defeat became an inevitability, it was just a matter of when......


  • #58
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    An Coilean wrote: »
    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.

    Was the killing of spies not a policy threw out the whole of IRA? And the didn't the 'surrender' that supposedly never happened come from unreliable sources. Or the did anybody else back up Peter Harts claims that this never actually happened?


  • #59
    Little_Korean
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Little_Korean


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Was the killing of spies not a policy threw out the whole of IRA? And the didn't the 'surrender' that supposedly never happened come from unreliable sources. Or the did anybody else back up Peter Harts claims that this never actually happened?

    Liam Deasy, when he came to his own account of the Cork fighting, gave an account of Kilmichael where the 'false surrender' didn't happen.

    To clarify: Deasy wasn't there himself, and was dependant on the account of someone else - name escapes me, alas - who was. Significantly, this account doesn't say that the three IRA casualties in the ambush (including Deasy's younger brother) were killed as part of the Auxiliaries' 'false surrender' - in Barry's account, the Auxiliaries called to surrender, and the three IRA men broke cover to approach them and were immediately shot down, prompting Barry to give the order to resume fighting and take no prisoners. In the account Deasy gives us, the witness doesn't even know that the three have been killed until after the fighting is over.

    Now, Deasy's account doesn't say that the 'false surrender' didn't happen, he just doesn't mention it. Barry was irrate enough to write a rebuttal based on that point, among others, though Deasy had passed away by then.

    At least, that's how I remember it. Any corrections would be gratefully received!


Advertisement