"The Wind That Shakes the Barley": Is accuracy important

vesp wrote:

Unfortunately it is the same selective view of history favoured by the republican propogandists. 99.99% of the government forces of the time did not go about pulling out fingernails....one or two republicans in Cork claimed one or two black and tans did, so this gets represented in the film as if all black and tans were torturers.
Its a poor film , disappointing in many ways, and boringly predictable. Maybe in an effort to restore balance the director will show the other side of the coin in his next movie eg by filming only about how some Irish protestants civilians were killed in front of their women folk just because they were protestants.

do you remember that ernie o'malley's book "on another man's wounds"? well about 5-10 pages was banned to be publish by british government until the 1960-1970's, it covers examples of brutality, what about the coverage of the deaths of peadar clancy and dick mckee. britain was well renouned,( and many more countries maybe even our own considering what free staters did to irregulars in co kerry ie blowing them up or getting them to search land mines,) for acts of bruatility to its prisoners of war. my mates great grand father (who i met ten years ago) was suspeted of being in the old ira and was taken out by the black and tans and wiped with thorns and got his two legs broken for his trouble, he had scars to prove it. not exactly the thing to run to the cops to press charges on assault back then.

as i have said in previous threads vesp, what went on in dublin and the attitudes of the crown often greatly differed to the rest of the country. stories like these have been handed down from generations to generations, acts like these do not be forgotten but of course its time to move on. tony blair on coming into power in 1997, on behalf of the government made an apology to the irish nation to his governments actions to ireland over the years, it maybe to a gimmick to make irish relationship better, but it was a nice gesture, better than what other previous governments did/

lol on the bit about a movie on the protestant victims, might actually be a good idea,

so all the farmers around macroom and its hinterland were all in the ira? suppose you are ok with the british army burning down balbriggan village during the war as a reprisal?

you really love stirring things up.did you know that although many joined or claimed to have joined the old ira, few actually saw service as few were in active service, ie flying columns. rest were in reserve.

i take it you either have no care, idea or you are unabelievably biased towards the british establiahment back in those days. you go on and on (in threads about IRISH HISTORY) about ww1 and ww2 and the horrible things that happened to certain groups yet the mention of these things happening to our fellow irish men and women you scorn upon the idea that it happened or make excuses like the previous. how come it seems ok for the americans and french to seek independence by means some people in the empire might have considered as terriorism? a majority of the nation some how approved of sinn fein's dail eireann and its courts and its police and the war of independence, many people shun the ric. why would have so many civilians have offered shelter, information and support (ya think the money ust came from america and then out of thin air?) how many irish veteran's of ww1 and ww2 got the big welcome home to our shores when the wars were over (unfairly shunned by some of the community)

you seem to continue to have the idea that the opinion that the same word on the street as in lushy dublin from 1916-1940 had the same application as the rest of the 26 counties. since when did you become an expert in guerilla war? ya got an issue with not have to wear glorified pompous uinforms. sure the old ira barely had arms and ammo for all the men, never mind worrying about uniforms if it was ok for the lads in the boer it was ok for us. or would you have preferred another glorious failure like the battle of the boyne or siege of derry perhaps?

as for the film,like all or most history films it has its flaws. but it does give a reasonable balance. a balance of the different struggles the irish solder had as to what kind of an ireland he was fighting for, was it a caholic church dominated ireland, a socialist ireland etc. it often showed how ruthless the ira had to be to their own pwople in order to win the war. it even showed a piece of humanity an english officer had, in the prison cell scene where the officer implied that he did not want to be in ireland and cried of how angery he was with irealnd considering what his people had to put up with in palces like the somme so to make such william 11 wouldnt get his paws on the world.

vesp wrote:

Relatively few civilians offered "shelter, information and support" to either the IRA or the PIRA. Some did certainly, but not the majority of the Irish people.
Give us some credit.

There were hundreds of thousands of veterans from WW1 and WW2 who returned home to Ireland. The majority of thir families and friends and communities were glad to see them again. The people who they helped liberate from the Nazi death camps and occupied Euriope were certainly glad of their help and glad to see them. However, you will always get a few bigots. Who cares what they thought....DeValera shot a few of these bigots during "the emergency" and there was no big outcry from the public. That shows the level of support for the IRA in that era. Instead 120,000 Irishmen volunteered to serve in British forces then, between 1939 - 1942, and lots more served in the war effort eg British merchant navy, in their factories etc.



what the hell has the PIRA got to do with the period of 1916-1925?. the PIRA was established in 1969-1970. is this the best you can do?. i am sure you are an intellent and well read man (jesus even some of your points have good merits) but keep the troubles era out. i was NOT referring to that time.its the old ira i am referring to.the flying columns had a very bg web of support.do you honestly think mick collins would have went through dublin without being caught if he had not the people (publicans, hotelliers etc) to shelter him and his army committees.where do you think tom barry and co went after doing mission, their homes? i assure you the opinion in some parts dublin greatly differed from the rest of the 26 counties in this period. people were not persecuted if they went to the traditional courts of law, yet many choose the sein fein courts as they recognised these courts as the courts of law. do you honestly believe that all the money funded came from dev's trips to the US?

any chance on hearing your opinion on:how come it was ok for the americans and french to fight for independence yet not ok for us. it just so happened that there was a world war happening, pearse and co took this as an oppurtunity to strike, and yes it was a bit oppurtunitist.

many were not too kindly welcomed back during ww1.some were shunned, and with the way the job availabilty was some of these veterans went back into the british army. oh course, i do agree there was bigots and oh course on has to consider the climate during 1916-1922 as oppose to 1939-1942 (which i am sure many irish people even republicans are greatful for the brave deeds of the allies)

you know very well the attitude towards britain was very different in 1916-1922 as opposed to 1939-1942

lets get something straight here. like this thread, many of the threads in history and hertiage (not all) refer to what happened in ireland 1916-1922.why do you keep refering to things that happened in later years eg the troubles, so you can justify your answers. whats with these revisionists who attempted to rewrite history. conor cruise o'brien should have popped down the country in the 1960-1970's and spoke to a few villagers who were around during the war of independence and see their story rather than try and win brownie points with their friends in the north.

the actions of 1916-1920 were not actions of terriorists. a government backed them. the government was dail eireann. a government who was supported by a majority of the irish people in the south (some thing like 73 seats? how many won by ipp?). a government that made it clear in 1918 that one way or another they would not accept westminster, and would ignore them by setting up there own. a government that invited labour and ipp to join. and again vesp, the dubliner's opinion of what was going to happen and what happened in 1916 does differ greatly to the opinion in the rest of the country.the war after all was to take place nationally only for mcneill's intervention (wheter it was right or wrong)the some of the first volunteer groups were established outside dublin, eg midlands volunteers 1914.

(only thing was it happened in dublin, and yes many were right to be outraged as many starved etc) that sure in 1916 many people in dublin did this and that is wearing thin vesp. look what dubliners did after 1916.

again what is with the references to northern bank, sure we all found that to be an outrage.much of the money was funded by cumanns and church gate collections (sein fein hush) and of course as minister for fiance collins offered bonds/loans to the public

what ghandi did was brilliant, but one could argue that he had some hindsight when looking at ireland's situation. look at when india got a smell of some independece and when ireland got the treaty, some age gap. now look at what happened between this time ie ststaute of westminster 1931

as for the protestant landlords, not all were innocent,some were informers who sent on information to ric about their suspicions of ira members. it was a war and they were enemies.the actions of some of them, led to the murders of ira men.(by all means i am not saying that because of that scene in the film) not like there were many in the south to begin with anyway.

was the UN established in 1916? not from what i hear anyway.even british mps in westminister recognised that ireland was a warzone in 1919-1921, dont be so flippant.it is funny how you bring the UN up now. in a recent thread on the north, i brought up that catholics/nationalist who were driven out of their homes and buisness in derry and areas near ardoyne belfast were akin to refugees bar the fact that they could relocate to the south. and again shock n awe you rubbished the suggestion as if they weren't. so you dsagree that the war of indepence or anglo irish war was not a war? well then what was it?


so can you name a few incidents were the old ira purposely went out to kill innocent protesant vicitms during 1916-1920, onsidering some of te leaders of the brigades were of protestant desent or had some connection? anyone regardless of background who were seen as colluding with ric/army were seen as enemies. i referred to the film because i was anticapating you jumping on that i was influence by that muck.

as for how many joined or claimed to have joined the old ira in various ranks and roles in that period, est over 50,000. i will get back to you on that though with proper references.

anyway by all means we can start another thread if you wish, but i dont want too be accused for going off topic here, as the topic is this film.

i am only making statements to your comments.you made a reference to the UN defintion of war and questioned whether or not th war of independence was a war. since the establishment of the UN that defintion applies. and you know full well why the UN was set up. even they have not got a clear definition of war.

roughly war is defined as a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. it is also a contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy. war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more nations carried on by authority of their respective governments.War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy." dail eireann did this by reannouncing the 1916 proclamation and asking the nations of the free world to recognise ireland as an independent nationa and for their help in their struggle.

so you look at the period of 1919-1922 and bear in mind history before ww2 it was the way things were sometimes done to seek independence. dail eireann allowed and supported the actions of the war of independence.as you well know some ministers had also acted in the army. it was two nations, ireland and britain.so no it was not an act of terriorism

now look at what happened in the troubles. it really depends on what side of the fence you sit on when you consider whether it was or was not a national or civil war. no government did support the ira, as you know dev iilegalised them in the fourties.but of course things are way too complex for anyone to jump to the conclusion and say ah the pira and rira and uvf/uda were terriorist in the 1970=1980ish. but of course by todays standards they are.

it is difficult to seperate or define the troubles,it can not be a case of black and white. the pira were established first to defend the people of the bogside and west belfast from discrimination and were a defensive group. we all know what happens next though, going offensive in mainland britain. could you have really imagine when our state went to the un and asked for peacekeepers to be sent to the north due to the state of conflict it was in,and proud britain would step up in front of the world and say something like, ye sorry lads, all those years of rule britainia and all that is out the window because their is a war/conflict in our back garden that we cant sort out ourselves,

but assure you what happened between the period of 1919-1922 is far different to what happened in recent times, by no means was the actions of 1919-1922 terriorism.