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.
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.
Irishmen who fought for the British Empire in WW1 fought for 'European freedom'
Options
Comments
-
My family would have been classed as catholic anglo norman farmers.
What century was this? My family would include one of the best known surnames from the Norman invasion, one which appears in La Chanson Dermot et du Comte, and was gaelicised by the late 13th century.
I'd be curious to know did you come up with this classification for nineteenth-century Ireland all on your own? I get the sense that the Norman aspect isn't the cause of your post-Cromwellian sympathies but rather it is something invoked to ostensibly give your personal politics a longer tradition in Ireland than it has a right to.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI am not a historian and if I used a made up classification at least you know what I mean.Post cromwellian sympathies -thats a classic.
Anyway its a million miles away from the points that I was making. So even though Irish recruits may have fought for European democracy in WWI or Irish democracy that it was not delivered.
And the sectarian tradition in Irish Republican activism only entered into things with the definitions of irish nationalism that developed around that time. That was delivered in Southern Ireland.The land question had been settled and the suffrage issues had been settled.
Lots of the republican volunteers would not have agreed with it and it was fairly mainstream politics wise, really little hitler stuff. One neighbour of my paternal grandfather commited suicide over it in the 1940s and I met his daughter at a family funeral once.
So while I am proud of Kilmichael I then have the Dunmanway killings and the mini protestant pogroms where ordinary people were killed victimised and displaced. Am I proud of that - no I am not.
Its like saying that the Robert McCartney murderers and those who slit his and the survivor Brendan Devines throats are heroes. Should I buy into that too because its the same thing in my book.Its not that long ago ..............
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2005/feb/13/i-voted-sinn-fein-but-id-vote-dup-before-id-suppor/?q=never%20vote%20Sinn%20F%C3%A9in%20again
edit - 1798 didnt follow sectarian politics and thats not what the United Irishmen were about.There was little more than 115 years betwwen 1798 and 1916.0 -
I'm thinking of the hold that the Church had when there was more stability, interfering in the actual running of the country. A lot of Catholics (on Boards anyway:D) don't like the Church interfering now, so for the protestant population of 80 or 90 years ago, it must have been a lot to put up with.
The dominant church here does not have clean hands in this debate either.
I went to a National School where the local priest used to come in now and again to have religious conversations with the pupils and the classes were brought together in the largest of the 3 classrooms for this. Then the three Protestant pupils were made to stand outside the door (sometimes in the turfshed if it was open) until the man in black had finished which took an hour or so and it didn't matter even if it was raining, same treatment.
Sammy. Jackie, Josie ....if ye are out there somewhere, I'm sure you'll recognise this, I've thought of it a thousand times over the years and feel utterly shamed that I was part of such a crackpot system.
0 -
The dominant church here does not have clean hands in this debate either.
I went to a National School where the local priest used to come in now and again to have religious conversations with the pupils and the classes were brought together in the largest of the 3 classrooms for this. Then the three Protestant pupils were made to stand outside the door (sometimes in the turfshed if it was open) until the man in black had finished which took an hour or so and it didn't matter even if it was raining, same treatment.
Sammy. Jackie, Josie ....if ye are out there somewhere, I'm sure you'll recognise this, I've thought of it a thousand times over the years and feel utterly shamed that I was part of such a crackpot system.
I thought that I was talking about the dominant church (i.e. Catholic Church) and its undue influence
.
The same religious problem still exists in schools. My brother decided that he wasn't going to be a Catholic anymore, so told the local national school that he didn't want his kids taking part in religious instruction. His kids would leave the room, but at least they didn't get wet like your old pals.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI thought that I was talking about the dominant church (i.e. Catholic Church) and its undue influence.
The same religious problem still exists in schools. My brother decided that he wasn't going to be a Catholic anymore, so told the local national school that he didn't want his kids taking part in religious instruction. His kids would leave the room, but at least they didn't get wet like your old pals.
in fairness - how the school system evolved was very much down to the states attitude. I am catholic but this catholic nationalism crack or we are afraid of the priests wont wash with me.
I mean how could a bunch of guys who participated in the likes of kilmichael and the dunmanway killings have been afraid of anything in this life or the next.Originally Posted by Abraham
Sammy. Jackie, Josie ....if ye are out there somewhere, I'm sure you'll recognise this, I've thought of it a thousand times over the years and feel utterly shamed that I was part of such a crackpot system.
+1 the more i read of these things the more I understand of my grandfathers beliefs and he participated in the war of independence.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Lets get all this straight the overwhelming majority of people voted in the 1918 General Election for Sinn Fein. This was the party for going alone, abandoning everything British and setting up an Irish Republic. The British PM promised the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party Home Rule for Ireland for Irish nationalist to participate in the war, WWI. The Brits reneged on that promise and refused to grant Home Rule to the island of Ireland. John Redmond the leader of IPP died a broken man because of his trust of liars.
The IRA was appointed by the Dail Eireann in 1919 by representation from the whole of the island of Ireland to be the army of the Irish government appointed by the Dail and for Ireland. The IRA had a democratic charter the non democrats were the British. The first Dail was outlawed by the British. For lovely Britain in the Irish War of Independence one has to look at the execution of the Lord Mayor of Cork and his successor dying on hunger strike and the rape looting and burning of Cork City. I don’t see anything to celebrate either in the execution on the playing pitch as in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday. It was rule by savages.
For terrorist, scum, thieves all one has to do is look at Britain and their policy in Ireland by the British Army, Black and Tans and their other hanger on scum. And British rule was maintained in Ireland by a corrupt cabal representing less than 10% of the population and descended from thieves. These were the ones who stole from the native Irish their lands, persecuted and enslaved them. The left Ireland the most impoverished country in Europe let millions die in Famine while food was being exported. The Irish Famine is in fact genocide. Whats that again about British Rule.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomMR O - I am not defending British Rule in Ireland.
What I am pointing out is that the nature of Irish Nationalism changed and the version which we got out of 1916 was a catholic republicsan vision and it had an ugly side. It excluded poor protestants. The presbyterians were every bit outsiders too and not members of thje "established" church.
Just because it scored an election victory -still with less than 50% of the popular vote - does not mean that participants were morally justified to take the actions they did,0 -
yes part of the catholic ugly side ,was to urge the new irish goverment to ban the church of ireland and just relegate it down to a sect,[but that was rejected] but they also attempted to stop the protestant long accepted way of intergration in ireland,by effectively stopping catholics marrying them.MR O - I am not defending British Rule in Ireland.
What I am pointing out is that the nature of Irish Nationalism changed and the version which we got out of 1916 was a catholic republicsan vision and it had an ugly side. It excluded poor protestants. The presbyterians were every bit outsiders too and not members of thje "established" church.
Just because it scored an election victory -still with less than 50% of the popular vote - does not mean that participants were morally justified to take the actions they did,0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomyes part of the catholic ugly side ,was to urge the new irish goverment to ban the church of ireland and just relegate it down to a sect,[but that was rejected] but they also attempted to stop the protestant long accepted way of intergration in ireland,by effectively stopping catholics marrying them.
i actually know very little about this.it would be nice to seperate fact from myth.
on marriage i thought it was the case that they would put pressure for the children to be brought up as catholics. probably extreme pressure.
was there someting about attending trinity giving rise to automatic excommunication.
wasnt their something about a protestant shop in a wexford village being boycotted and the boycott being ended only because the local priest went in and shopped there
the boycott would have put them out of business and forced migration
edit - found a link http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2010/04/04/story48286.asp
some other background data from alliance support
http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/001982.html0 -
Advertisement
-
MR O - I am not defending British Rule in Ireland.
What I am pointing out is that the nature of Irish Nationalism changed and the version which we got out of 1916 was a catholic republicsan vision and it had an ugly side. It excluded poor protestants. The presbyterians were every bit outsiders too and not members of thje "established" church.
Just because it scored an election victory -still with less than 50% of the popular vote - does not mean that participants were morally justified to take the actions they did,
Did it exclude poor Protestants or poor loyalists/unionists? (and in what ways) Or did it simply exclude the poor?
....0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomDid it exclude poor Protestants or poor loyalists/unionists? (and in what ways) Or did it simply exclude the poor?
....
It targeted trades people and shopkeepers etc who were enterprising and forced them out. How many other countries in europe did that??
So it wasnt really the poor but they targeted progressive ordinary people who were enterprising but were protestant and who chose to stay.
These werent landlords or former landlords or the military or the police.
Politics had nothing to do with it.These were people who chose to stay -ordinary people.0 -
There were in fact very few poor Protestants in the then Irish Free State. The Protestants were the large landowners, professions and traders. Irish nationalism was not religion orientated but rather it’s so defined to end British rule in Ireland. A lot of these Protestants attached themselves to Britain and the coming independent state found themselves politically and socially isolated. During British rule this small group ran Ireland for their British master without reference to the will or wellbeing of the people of Ireland, some becoming informers and fighting against the revolution. Come independence there was a Celtic revival and at local level the GAA became the core social activity. Following the local parish team or county team was the social focus of parish activity and county. Protestant families had no association with the GAA and often their children had being educated in Dublin or other larger cities isolating them from their local peer groups. For attacks on protestants in the Irish Free State such attacks were very few and often were associated with settling old scores and in cities and towns for the displaying of British Union flag commemorating some event in Britain or its imperial past. There would have being the very same reaction if it was Catholics were publically displaying British emblems.
The Protestant population was in decline long before the Irish state was founded, firstly the population was in the region of 10% at the turn of the century and confined to ruling classes. This class did not associate with the majority of the population and would have regarded it as inferior to it. It was a declining class, WWI added to its woes and its inability to adapt to the new political landscape. As for the blaming of Ne Temere decree for the vast majority of Catholics they did not know of it and it was irrelevant whereas it was all consuming by the protestant population. The facts are is both groups did not mix as both were not only different in religion but totally different socially. The coming Irish state this protestant class was abandoned by their British masters; they had no empathy with the new Irish state and were totally isolated from the ordinary life of the nation such as politics, sports and social interaction with the ordinary people of the nation. An example of this isolation is Trinity College. Trinity regarded itself as an island bastion of Britishness in the heart of Dublin some suggests waiting for the day of the return of British rule for Ireland. It did not recognize the Irish state and it was well into the 1960ths before the applied for state aid. Previous to this it would have being an anathema for them as such would be a de facto recognition of the Irish state.
If one is to look at the infamous Fethard-on-Sea boycott which was local Catholic Church inspired and was local. It does not seem to have any church hierarchical involvement. It had no political force behind it, the Irish Government denounced it, and such would have being an anathema to Irish nationalist and it was totally devoid of its imprimatur.
If one is to look at Protestant families which have survived the foundation of the state especially in rural Ireland, it’s because they were integrated with their neighbors and for cities there continued to exist a core professional protestant group. Those to suffer most from the Catholic Church in the Irish state were the Catholic people themselves and the lower the class status the more of its imprimatur it felt. Most Catholics lived in fear and servitude to these religious masters. From what I understand where there was Protestants mixed with Catholics in national schools they usually got an extended lunch break while catholic religion teaching took place. And for Irish nationalist many too were outside the Catholic Church pale since the Irish Civil War.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomAn intersting book review on the matther here by Geoffrey Wheatcroft -he writes in the Daily Telegraph and is a respected journalist.
Its a book review from the New Statesman covering the issue of southern protestants from 1900 onwards.
http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/southernunis.htm
Interesting note that the Dunmanway victims included an 82 year old retired draper, 2 16 year old boys a vicar.
in 1902 protestants in the south numbered 10% of the population.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomMR O - I am not defending British Rule in Ireland.
What I am pointing out is that the nature of Irish Nationalism changed and the version which we got out of 1916 was a catholic republicsan vision and it had an ugly side. It excluded poor protestants. The presbyterians were every bit outsiders too and not members of thje "established" church.
Just because it scored an election victory -still with less than 50% of the popular vote - does not mean that participants were morally justified to take the actions they did,
There were 1 further general elections prior to the Free State elections in 1920. WHat excuse did the IPP or people who opposed the Republican cause got after this? People risked their lives offering their homes and food to active volunteers. How the hell could they possibly survive three months of war against a superior trained, experienced and funded army without them. People also risked arrest and worse by carrying messages and guns and more importantly, information to the volunteers. Many people, at the turn of 1920 (in fairness, the british shot themselves in the foot with their arbitary carry on, must be said, SInn Fein promised progress via the Versialle Conference) completely dispised and boycotted the RIC and British establishment. If left alone, the REpublican Courts would have been accepted by the public at large. Only an idiot would suggest that the actions of the IRA, whether they morally accepted it in normal instancecs, were not supported by a majority of the people. Look at the amount of money ordinary people put into the national loans etc which was collected by Republican Police who were known IRA men. Did these people really believe that all that money was going to go to rent,stationary and tax funds for the Dáil? Please
It has become a straw man argument to whinge about the anger and lack of support of the 1916 actions. THey knew this, they knew intially they would not get support initially, and they knew what kind of reaction the British would take by stamping it out. THey could the courage to call their bluff and their actions turned out to succeed. Unfortunately it meant use of violence. (doubt they would have thought the British would have tried to conscript the Irish for WW1).
Sinn Féin tried the Ghandi approach; It ignored Westminister, it tried to ignore the British Courts and its police. Look what the Brits do, round ups, raids and declare the institues illegal. Look at what Britian did in trying to discredit the TD's and falsely imprison them via the libelious German Plot fiasco
You look at the public perception, who complained. THe media? Unionist/British in attitude and were use to peace and were use to the IPP (who did great work btw) In fairness what were they to say? risk giving the rebels around of applause and risk being shut down? THe wives who threw rubbish and fruit and the men of 1916 and various towns during the 1918 elections - they had their interests as they had their husbands in Flanders etc and needed income. Or what about the town and city polticans who wanted to keep their posts? How many people actually did go onto the streets to express their anger out of interest?
Look how many went out to see off THomas Ashe or McCurtain and Sweeney, or even prior to 1916, Donovan O'Rossa?
Yes, the war of independence was not a perfect "revolution". It did not bring in the nationalist minded protestant. It did also ignore the needs of the socialist/Connolly minded. Certain people had their own interests (THe RC head men seemed to want to have their cakes and eat them, the land hunger etc) This is a sad aspect. But, its not like some Protestants were completely opposed to the Irish cause, it was not just those of the Catholic faith who gave homes etc to volunteers. But why didn't they come out a have their say?, what do you expect if they did not come out for the cause? (there were people of the Protestant faith involved so it was not exlusively Irish btw)
However, it was made clear in the Dail in the early days, that the type of government and country could be determined once the war was over. There was no point doing the usual "split" before getting Britian out.
THe IRA and Sinn Fein clearly had some slice of the majority. It does not matter a fiddlers if it did not apparently have it straight away, they had it when it counts. There is no spin with that, it is mostly fact
Morals go out the window in war time, no matter how you like it or not. THe british or any other country is the same, they have their morals when it suits them.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomWalrus - this hardly correlated with the beliefs of James Connolly.
The Dunmanway killings were hardly a random act or moral lapse and what did the victims have to do with Ashe McCurtain or WestminsterIn addition to attacks on RIC and British military targets, the IRA also killed those who gave information to the British forces. According to Tom Barry, the local IRA commander, the Third Cork Brigade killed fifteen informers in 1919-1921, including nine Catholics and six Protestants [8] In addition, they responded to the British burning of republican homes by burning those of local loyalists. For example in June 1921, in revenge for the burning of two republicans' homes, Tom Barry wrote, 'The IRA extracted a heavy price in return...we burned to the ground in that district all the homes of British loyalists [9]. British intelligence wrote that "many" of their informers in West Cork... "were murdered and almost all the remainder suffered grave material loss" [10].
That was one thing -however this is altogether something else. Have you read this.URL="http://www.boards.ie/w/index.php?title=User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre&action=edit§ion=4"][COLOR=#002bb8]edit[/COLOR][/URL The killings at Ballygroman
At 2:30 am on Wednesday April 26, a group of IRA men, led by Michael O'Neill, arrived at the house of Thomas Hornibrook at Ballygroman, near Ballincollig, in the Bandon area, seeking to seize his car.
Thomas Hornibrook was in the house at the time along with his son, Samuel Hornibrook and Herbert Woods (a former Captain in the British Army and MC). All three were Protestants and also have been described as "extremely anti-Republican," and had reportedly been in contact with the Essex Regiment based in Bandon during the conflict, supplying information on the local IRA. Thomas Hornibrook was a former magistrate, and his daughter Matilda, was married to Herbert Woods. Matilda herself would later described herself and her husband as "outspoken Loyalists".[15]. Republicans suspected them of being involved in a secret loyalist organisation, the "Murragh Loyalist Action Group", known locally as the "Protestant Action Group" which was suspected of espionage and involvement in the killing of the two Coffey brothers, republican activists killed in Enniskeane in February 1921. [16]
Michael O'Neill demanded a part of the engine mechanism (the magneto) that had been removed by Thomas Hornibrook to prevent such commandeering. Hornibrook refused to give them the part, and after further efforts, some of the IRA party entered through a window. Herbert Woods then shot O'Neill, wounding him fatally. O'Neill's companion Charlie O'Donoghue took him to a local priest for Last Rites before he died. The next morning O'Donoghue left for Bandon to report the incident to his superiors, returning with four IRA men, meeting with the Hornibrook's and Woods who admitted to shooting O'Neill. [17][18]
A local jury found Woods responsible and said that O'Neill had been 'brutally murdered in the execution of his duty.' Charlie O'Donoghue and Stephen O'Neill, who were present the night of the killing both attended the inquest. Hornibrook's house was burned some time after the incident.[19]
Some days later Capt Woods, Thomas Hornibrook and his son Samuel went missing, and in time were presumed killed. The Morning Post newspaper reported that, 'about 100' IRA men returned from Bandon with O'Neill's comrades and surrounded the house. It reported that a shootout then ensued until the Hornibrooks and Woods ran out of ammunition and surrendered. However this report in the Morning Post has been described as 'exaggerated.' [20] Prior to this incident on the 13 April Michael Collins who expressed concern about newspaper reports alleging attacks on Protestants in Ireland, particularly those of the Morning Post to Desmond Fitzgerald, saying that while some of its coverage was "fair newspaper comment" that the "strain of certain parts is very objectionable." [21]
While the details of the deaths of the two Hornibrooks and Woods have never been confirmed, local Protestants reported gruesome, though inconsistent, stories about their killing.
Alice Hodder, a local Protestant of Crosshaven, wrote to her mother shortly afterwards of Herbert Woods that, "His aunt and uncle had been subject to a lot of persecution and feared an attack so young Woods went to stay with them. At 2:30 am armed men...broke in...Woods fired on the leader and shot him... They caught Woods, tried him by mock court martial and sentenced him to be hanged...The brothers of the murdered man then gouged out his eyes while he was alive and then hanged him" concluding , "When will the British Government realise that they are really dealing with savages and not ordinary normal human beings?" The letter was forwarded to Lionel Curtis, Secretary of the Cabinet's Irish Committee, on which he appended the comment "this is rather obsolete."[22]. Matilda Woods later testified before the Grants committee for £5,000 compensation in 1927 that her husband was drawn and quartered before being killed and that the Hornibrooks were taken to a remote location, forced to dig their own graves and then shot dead.
However, Matilda Woods was not in Ireland when her husband disappeared and there is no record of their bodies being located. Historian Meda Ryan therefore argues that statements on the manner of their death must be, "read with caution." [23]
URL="http://www.boards.ie/w/index.php?title=User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre&action=edit§ion=5"][COLOR=#002bb8]edit[/COLOR][/URL Killings in the Dunmanway, Ballineen and Murragh area
The incident at Hornibrookes' home appears to have been the cause of two days of violence in rural west Cork. Historians Peter Hart, Meda Ryan and Tim Pat Coogan all cite the killings as having 'sparked' the subsequent attacks.
Over the next two days ten Protestant men were shot and killed in the Dunmanway, Ballineen and Murragh area. In Dunmanway on the 27th April, Francis Fitzmaurice (69) – a solicitor and land agent – was shot dead, as were David Gray, a chemist and James Buttimer (82), a retired draper, in the doorways of their homes on the Main St., Dunmanway; a number of other Protestants in Dunmanway were also attacked. There was so much gunfire in the town that some residents thought the barracks, by then manned by an IRA unit was under attack [24].
In the Ballinee area also on the 27 April, James Bradfield (69), a post office official, was shot dead. Revd. Ralph Harbord – the son of the Revd. Richard C. M. Harbord from the Murragh area – was shot and killed. [25]
Next evening two men, Robert Howe (60) and John Chinnery, were shot dead at their farms in Ballaghanure, east of Dunmanway. In the nearby village of Ballineen, a 16 year-old, Alexander McKinley was shot dead. In a house in Caher (to the west of Ballineen) John Buttimer and Jim Greenfield were also shot and killed. Ten miles away, Robert Nagle (also 16) was killed in his home in MacCurtain Hill in Clonakilty. Other houses in Clonakilty were raided.The following night (28 April), John Bradfield was shot in his home in Killowen, east of Murragh and other Protestant homes were raided.[26]
And then you had the exodusURL="http://www.boards.ie/w/index.php?title=User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre&action=edit§ion=6"][COLOR=#002bb8]edit[/COLOR][/URL Aftermath
According to Niall Harrington – a Pro-Treaty IRA officer at the time – over 100 Protestant families fled West Cork in the aftermath of the attacks, in fear of further sectarian attacks.[27] Alice Hodder in the same letter cited above wrote
“"For two weeks there wasn't standing room on any of the boats or mail trains leaving Cork for England. All loyalist refugees who were either fleeing in terror or had been ordered out of the country...none of the people who did these things, though they were reported as the rebel IRA faction, were ever brought to book by the Provisional Government." [28]”
One Cork correspondent of Irish Times who saw the refugees go through the city noted that, "so hurried was their flight that many had neither a handbag nor an overcoat." [29
It is fairly bleak by all accountants and the people who commited the crimes were animals and not punished.
Even though the source is wiki - it is consistant with what I heard from several people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomWalrus - this hardly correlated with the beliefs of James Connolly.
The Dunmanway killings were hardly a random act or moral lapse and what did the victims have to do with Ashe McCurtain or Westminster
That was one thing -however this is altogether something else. Have you read this.
And then you had the exodus
It is fairly bleak by all accountants and the people who commited the crimes were animals and not punished.
Even though the source is wiki - it is consistant with what I heard from several people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre
Excuse me but did you read my post. I never said the war correlated with Connolly! I said it was not a perfect war (ie exlcusion of people of another faith, complete ignorance of the socialist values of the 1916 Proclamation). I was directly making an attempt, SOLELY, in relation to this straw man argument of morals on the ground that 1916 was not justified because more than 50 % did not support it. That might be correct intially, but after that, that is pure boulderdash. It is something somem people can not get their heads around or refuse to accept - that violence was, for a time at least tolerated by a majority. You have not got what I am responding to, you are simply trying to find a tiny chunk in my argument to suit yourself. But to make clear, in direct reference to my comments which where in response to another post which I responded too, I accept the war was not ideal in the sense that the movement, were at the worse, did often, have sectarian tendencies (as seen in the last days of the Gaelic League, which was intially greatly supported by Protestants!! THen DP Morgan had to open his mouth) BTW I doubt Pearse and many other IRB would have tolerated the killing of Protestants simply because of their religion
However, lets discuss what you have said (part where I am quoting you)
With regard to Connolly, we know from his time in Belfast in 1913 that he despised sectranism. He despised land grabbers and people out to make their own few quid and who would topple anyone to get it. Lets be honest, and without disrepecting those who particapted in the struggle, I am sure many were keen on simply getting the "B*stard" landlord out so that the locals could get a fair share of the land. (Then when we look at the history and stories of eviction during famine times, lets not judge too hastly)
Connolly believed in getting structures and principles in first then fight for it. THe war of independence was the other way round. Too many people were fighting for different things. One things, again, he would not have wanted to see people killed simply because of their religion!!!We have no idea what Connolly would have tought about the techinques of guerrilla warfare. He was pragmatic. He may have saw the errors of Pearse's ways and who knows, maybe he would have been influenced by the Boer War? He did not seem too concerned with the fact that soliders of Irish birth in British Uniforms were being killed by his men in 1916!! Connolly was quickly forgotten!(sadly)
Spies (Not just Protestants btw! Catholics too) were killed because they were a threat to the movement. Their work/deeds led to the capture, torture and deaths of members of the IRA and sympathisers! Houses were burned because of their actions. Their hands were filled with blood too. But that what happens in war, intelligence is a crucial part of succeeding in the war. Spies and all enemies were publically warned of their faith should they interfere with the IRA, the same can be said of the Black n Tans, Auxies and British Army. People knew their faiths if caught.
You know full well, when you look at 1798 and the rebellions/scraps of 1800's Britain won because of Irish born people informing and spying. Ireland was never going to win a hand to hand fight. War is dirty, surely you are not ignorant to that!
Why should a small minority (spies in general) get sympathy. The IRA was responsible to the Dáíl. THe Dáil, on MANDATE of the people (to get away from Westminister, seek separation from Britian, set up their own government ) proclaimed in January 1919 to do whatever possible to achieve their goals. THese minorities did not wish for the majority to succeed, for whatever reason (loyality to the Union, self interest, we do not know)
Now getting straight back to Dunmanway, which appeared AFTER the truce - end of Tan War erea. Nothing can be said to defend that, as I would imagine that there was more to it than being accused as a spy. the rare actions of a small force, in, near or around truce time can not hardly make the whole movement, particularily when it was not as common as people like to think. Get more material on that event FROM both sides before a proper discussion could be had (I say this simply, because it was you who raised that issue)
As it was 1922, this SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED! Sadly, it might have been a case of settling some scores like the killing of Wilson in London. Peter Harte's book (one on Cork IRA) needs caution as alot of matters in particular eg kilmichael ambush is SERIOUSLY flawed (eg he claimed he spoke to a surving member of that ambush in relation to the false surrender or lack of, despite the fact that the last survivor died 2 years before Harte came to Cork for research! His book is riddled with lack of evidence himself, of course, one should take care to, I guess, of the work of Cork woman, Media Ryan who worked on Barry and has disputed with Harte) Bloody history we will never know.
Not that it makes it alright, but in 1922, the Catholics hardly had a swell time of it in Belfast! with ex RIC men heading north to take their anger out on them. Now, Civil War was a horrible distraction for the Northerners
To make it crystal clear. what happened to any protestant (or Catholic) who was not responsible or involved or associated in active work against Dail Eireann but was killed by the IRA can not be justified, ever! killing simply because of a relgion is gutless. THe war with Britian was over! If they were concerned with spying after that then the worse they could have done, (after getting the all clear from GHQ) was to force them out of the area/country (if they had clear evidence of their "crime")0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomSo will there be a day that we commemerate Dunmanway in the way we do Bloody Sunday - U2 havent written a song about it but Bloody Dunmanway has a nice ring to it.
There was no evidence that the victims in Dunmanway were spies.I totally disagree with you that these were in any way legitimate targets or war casualties. Boys and old men.The killers were well known.
If the there was an Irish precedent it was the Limerick Pogrom in 1904.`
We do know that James Connolly was against sectarianism as you have pointed out so on balance he would have been against Dunmanway.
The landlord issues had been largely dealt with by the land acts and those guys were largely gone.`
I am sure I have mentioned it before but Peter Harte's book had nothing to do with it and I havent read it but I have used reviews of it to allow people reading to look it up if they want to. My late grandfather who was a member of the West Cork Brigade told me about it.0 -
walrusgumble wrote: ». Peter Harte's book (one on Cork IRA) needs caution as alot of matters in particular eg kilmichael ambush is SERIOUSLY flawed (eg he claimed he spoke to a surving member of that ambush in relation to the false surrender or lack of, despite the fact that the last survivor died 2 years before Harte came to Cork for research! His book is riddled with lack of evidence himself, of course, one should take care to, I guess, of the work of Cork woman, Media Ryan who worked on Barry and has disputed with Harte) Bloody history we will never know.
I agree about the Peter Hart book - it has been widely discredited but unfortunately it has spawned a lot of misinformation which goes the rounds. Meda Ryan's response was that the killings at Dunmanway were not sectarian but informants and questioned Hart's research. History Ireland has an excellent article in which she took on many of Hart's claims. Hart has never been able to answer the charges against his flawed work and especially his claim to have interviewed someone who was dead for two years prior to the time he [Hart] claimed to have interviewed him about the Kilmichael ambush.
Another source is historian Brian Murphy who published The Origin and Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland in 1920. Murphy pointed out the fact that Peter Hart had simply reproduced sophisticated British propaganda accounts. Murphy was able to show the hidden hand of chief British propagandist Basil Clark, operating out of Dublin Castle in the accounts. Murphy was also able to trace newspaper reports of the period to Clarke's office in Dublin Castle and called this method "propaganda by news". Some of the allegations of brutality -especially mutilation - Murphy claims can be directly traced to Clark who then had these reports placed in newspapers.
In all Hart is not to be relived on at all.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomAh but guys -my grandfather didnt read it in a book. He was there.0
-
Advertisement
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomSo will there be a day that we commemerate Dunmanway in the way we do Bloody Sunday - U2 havent written a song about it but Bloody Dunmanway has a nice ring to it.
There was no evidence that the victims in Dunmanway were spies.I totally disagree with you that these were in any way legitimate targets or war casualties. Boys and old men.The killers were well known.
If the there was an Irish precedent it was the Limerick Pogrom in 1904.`
We do know that James Connolly was against sectarianism as you have pointed out so on balance he would have been against Dunmanway.
The landlord issues had been largely dealt with by the land acts and those guys were largely gone.`
I am sure I have mentioned it before but Peter Harte's book had nothing to do with it and I havent read it but I have used reviews of it to allow people reading to look it up if they want to. My late grandfather who was a member of the West Cork Brigade told me about it.
I mention Peter Harte's book because, when it came out in the 1990's it helped to kick off the whole issue and comparison with what has gone on in the north, cue in the over exageration of Eoin Harris. More significantly, the piece you quoted from wiki COMES from his book! Cork IRA and their Enemies. However, no one here, particularily me, has said ye Dumanway was correct.
I was rebutting previous comments that 1916 and the Tan War was not moral and that it did not have 50% plus. By doing so, I tried to be balanced and accepted that there were rouges and me féinners in the movement. However, then you come out with this nugget to try and deride the movement, incidents which happened AFTER JULY 1921. Its not relevant when trying to criticise the movembent from 1916-1921. Things completely changed after the Truce, emotions were extremely high and people became headless leaders. Had Collins have lived a better treatment of Protestants would possibly have occurred.
Again, you seem to have an extreme difficulty in reading because I clearly said Dunmanay was wrong. It was AFTER the ceasefire. I also said it was possible that it was a case of getting one over them after what happened during the war! So I don't know why you respond to that because there is no argument with you here. Have the bloody decency and cop on to at least not try to misquote me. Either way, I never said, as a matter of fact, they were spies. Jesus if you bothered to read, when I spoke about spies I clearly put in brackets "(spies in general)". That does not say Dunmanway were as a matter of fact were spies! How would I know, I was not there. But what the usual craic is that was normally the albi the volunteers gave. whether it was a correct suspicion is another thing.
Dunmanway, the main heads of the movement CONDEMNED IT! It was not sanctioned by GHQ, so we don't need to go to Connolly. I have no qualms with any accusation that the action was secterian, if the facts are there the facts are there. But just bear one thing in mind, the papers, who were censured at the time by the Army; when reporting on deaths of civilians and army officers, regularily, not only quoted a persons name but also the religion. THis did not happen if a Catholic was killed. WHY? Many of these people caused the deaths of others, whether they were guilty or innocent, why should they be remembered. The IRA publically warned the populace to have nothing to do with British forces. People knew the consequences and of their faith should they be found out. THe IRA had their moles in the RIC and Post Offices. They knew who was doing what, so know one will have sympathy for a spie (now here this! I am again, not saying Dunmaway people were spies in any way shape or form, if you proceed further on that particular assumption, I am ignoring it)
As for the Landlord matter, right!! Absentee landlords were still around and the big ranchers were there (many being Catholic of course) Castles and Mansions were still being occupied. Land payments were still there and not everyone could afford bigger and more economical holdings. 10 acres of rocks hardly much is it. THere was a land hunger around, look how the ranks would swell in 1918-1919 period when cattle razing and the like occurred. So that argument is an non starter0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomAh but guys -my grandfather didnt read it in a book. He was there.
You are the one who brought in the incident which you used his work to support your argument.
WIth regard to your grandfather, I ain't disputing your opinion. Its quiete possible. But was your grandfather privy to all brigade information. I assume he knew the family or area and who was hot or not.
I would wonder, if these people were that hot, why weren't they dealt with during the Tan War, there and then? So ye, I would tend to believe that these people were wrongly targeted or killed out of anger in response to deaths caused in their own (IRA) group on mere grounds of their religion0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomWhen you look at Irishmen who fought in WWI lots of them did so in response to Redmonds campaign. They wanted democracy in Ireland.
The only way you can measure what happened is with reference to the treatment of returning soldiers and the treatment of the protestant population.
My grandfather was extremely sensitive about Dunmanway and other events. He was not the only one.
There was also a local history book in Waterford a few years back about the treatment of returning WWI veterans, especially those that were badly injured. That was fairly bad too.
In the 30s you had volunteers going to Spain in support of a fascist regime and catholicism fighting a holy war.
It strikes me that the democracy we got was a bit of a cock up and there was a lot of coercion going on.
Whatever Harts book is like I think he was fairly bang on about Dunmanway.
I am from Cork and was brought up with the versions of history and taught by teachers who in turn had probably been students of Professor Murphy in UCC. So would not view him as impartial and I dont think he really is. In the town I grew up in you had a chemist who helped a policeman who had been shot outside his shop on the mainstreet forced out.
We were taught how the British lied about the Boundary Commision but not about Dunmanway. There was a fairly significant hole in the version we were taught.0 -
There was no evidence that the victims in Dunmanway were spies.I totally disagree with you that these were in any way legitimate targets or war casualties.
You can't actually say there is "no evidence" because Meda Ryan and other historians have put forward counter-arguments in this case with evidence that 8 of the victims were found on a list in captured British military intelligence files - they were listed as "helpful citizens" in the war.
Also many historians including Ryan, Murphy and John Borgonovo attacked Hart's stand by pointing out that Hart used a British report Record of the Rebellion in Ireland and was highly selective in how he quoted from this source. Significantly he - purposely[?] - left out a sentence which actually contradicts the fact that the motives were purely sectarian. Again Hart, whose work is at the centre of the "sectarian" and "random victims" charges, has made no answer as to why he left out the sentence.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomTwo of those were taken out because there fathers were not at home. One a clergyman and another a 16 year old boy. The Hornibrooks were protecting their car and home. I imagine cars were a rarity and very expensive.
The list cited by Meda Ryan as I understand it was a list of surnames of helpful citizens. A helpful citizen is what -you have armed soldiers coming up to your house and you are civil to them. Jean McConville springs to mind as does McCartney.
The common factor here was that they were Protestants and not nationalists.
If anything Meda Ryan discredits herself. I dont know Hartes work and have no wish to seek it out. I wont be rushing out to read anything by Ryans anytime soon.
Take away IRA and insert Tans in the literature and you would have justifiable anger. So yes we are entitled to look at the IRAs behavior in Dunmanway to the same standard.
I have reason to doubt Murphys work as selective-hey he is a fan and hardly objective. Ryan is scrapping the bittom of the barrel and the other chap I know nothing about.I am not defending Harte and havent read his book but from whats being said here it is like" he is being savaged by a dead sheep" .0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomWhen you look at Irishmen who fought in WWI lots of them did so in response to Redmonds campaign. They wanted democracy in Ireland.
The only way you can measure what happened is with reference to the treatment of returning soldiers and the treatment of the protestant population.
My grandfather was extremely sensitive about Dunmanway and other events. He was not the only one.
There was also a local history book in Waterford a few years back about the treatment of returning WWI veterans, especially those that were badly injured. That was fairly bad too.
In the 30s you had volunteers going to Spain in support of a fascist regime and catholicism fighting a holy war.
It strikes me that the democracy we got was a bit of a cock up and there was a lot of coercion going on.
Whatever Harts book is like I think he was fairly bang on about Dunmanway.
I am from Cork and was brought up with the versions of history and taught by teachers who in turn had probably been students of Professor Murphy in UCC. So would not view him as impartial and I dont think he really is. In the town I grew up in you had a chemist who helped a policeman who had been shot outside his shop on the mainstreet forced out.
We were taught how the British lied about the Boundary Commision but not about Dunmanway. There was a fairly significant hole in the version we were taught.
And many fought in WW1 for economic reasons, and many fought for adventure. So you can't lay that one soley of Redmond's call! Redmond turned out to be misguided and wrong. I would say though, the treatment of the returning soliders was harsh, they should have been grabbed and enticed to fight for the IRA. But look, by the time that they returned, the majority of people were in no mood to be all nice and kind to a man in a British uniform.
I would not blame your grandfather feeling the way he did or does. How could one be proud of Dunmanway (assuming if those killed were completely innocent. If not, well, to hell with them) But don't you dare go using that incident to degrade the work of other volunteers around the country, between 1918-1921 to justify whatever it is you are trying to argue (ie whether or not the majority of people supported/tolerated the IRA during the Tan War, anything else, is in context a different matter)
But, i see what you are doing (ie tan war not relevant to the title of this thread), so I should go back to it. It aint' worth poundering why Irish men do what they do (re Spanish Civil War fighting on both sides, fighting for Britian when one has a nationalist point of view) Our history is full of paradoxs and nothing is simply black and white.
Again, Dunmanway, I could not dare attempt to contradict you on this or even dare say, ah it was once off. I have difficulty accepting this, considering knowing what Irish people can be like, and their social background then. But again, you can't use this to completely mark off the republican struggle as a whole. If the British did not act the way they did then there would have being no need to kill loyalists. Wasn't the killing and maiming of Catholics by Tans and British Army (mostly Protestant)etc not Sectarian?0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomwalrusgumble wrote: »And many fought in WW1 for economic reasons, and many fought for adventure. So you can't lay that one soley of Redmond's call! Redmond turned out to be misguided and wrong. I would say though, the treatment of the returning soliders was harsh, they should have been grabbed and enticed to fight for the IRA. But look, by the time that they returned, the majority of people were in no mood to be all nice and kind to a man in a British uniform.
It was popular recruitment people were not stupid and knew the reasons they joined but the treatment of them continued for years afterwards.I would not blame your grandfather feeling the way he did or does. How could one be proud of Dunmanway (assuming if those killed were completely innocent. If not, well, to hell with them) But don't you dare go using that incident to degrade the work of other volunteers around the country, between 1918-1921 to justify whatever it is you are trying to argue (ie whether or not the majority of people supported/tolerated the IRA during the Tan War, anything else, is in context a different matter
My paternal grandfathers brother died in Belgium and his sister was killed by the Black and Tans.
Both my grandfathers were involved in the War of Independence. You still have to call it as it was.But, i see what you are doing (ie tan war not relevant to the title of this thread), so I should go back to it. It aint' worth poundering why Irish men do what they do (re Spanish Civil War fighting on both sides, fighting for Britian when one has a nationalist point of view) Our history is full of paradoxs and nothing is simply black and white.
I am making the point that some guys did not stoop fighting but kept going.Again, Dunmanway, I could not dare attempt to contradict you on this or even dare say, ah it was once off. I have difficulty accepting this, considering knowing what Irish people can be like, and their social background then. But again, you can't use this to completely mark off the republican struggle as a whole. If the British did not act the way they did then there would have being no need to kill loyalists. Wasn't the killing and maiming of Catholics by Tans and British Army (mostly Protestant)etc not Sectarian?
I am not so sure if it is off the mark.Pre 20th century there were many protestants involved in the struggle for independence.
What i am saying is that look -its all very nice to be romantic about it but the reality is that our democracy had a lot of nasty bits attached to it-that in my book are inexcusable.
These events were not Kilmichael and politically they were tolerated for years and years after it.
I am not excusing or justifying the Black and Tans. I am saying that these repriesals were something else and the emigration that followed it was a result of that mini pogrom.0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomIt was popular recruitment people were not stupid and knew the reasons they joined but the treatment of them continued for years afterwards.
My paternal grandfathers brother died in Belgium and his sister was killed by the Black and Tans.
Both my grandfathers were involved in the War of Independence. You still have to call it as it was.
I am making the point that some guys did not stoop fighting but kept going.
I am not so sure if it is off the mark.Pre 20th century there were many protestants involved in the struggle for independence.
What i am saying is that look -its all very nice to be romantic about it but the reality is that our democracy had a lot of nasty bits attached to it-that in my book are inexcusable.
These events were not Kilmichael and politically they were tolerated for years and years after it.
I am not excusing or justifying the Black and Tans. I am saying that these repriesals were something else and the emigration that followed it was a result of that mini pogrom.
I am loosing track on how many points you are trying to make. I am not being smart or intend to, but you are swaying from one angle to another.
Right:rolleyes: Home before Christmas, the "Glorious War". Friends and siblings, pub teams and clubs joining up, did not want to be seen left behind. No one foresaw the savagery that would occur in the Somme and elsewhere.
Why do you bring up your relations. I had relations (Grandfather's family) involved too, so had many others. How does it support your arguments? Nice to see how the Cork boys get their centre of the universe attitudes from. By using that, it make absolutely NO success in rebutting anything others are saying. So you are telling me that your grandfather saw all the action and knew all the secret goings on in County Cork, never mind West Cork? so he is an expert on what went on elsewhere? Is he the voice of West Cork ( I am really really sorry if that seems offensive. Its not intended)
What do you mean, when you say (directly after telling us you had family members involved in both ww1 and tan war - by deal btw, it was not unique, even Earnie O'Malley's brother died in WW1)"You still have to call it as it was". call the war what? over one or two incidents that happened after the truce (therefore should not be considered part of the tan war!) I have already said, Protestants were involved in the IRA, be it in active services or civilan assistance.
Of course its going to be a popular recruitment, ordinary person (no not the shop keeper or land owner) had little or no money. We had the Dublin lock out only 1 years prior. What do you mean
I am leaving it at this. READ MY BLOODY POSTS IN FULL! STOPING TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME MOTIVE OR OTHER MEANING TO CLEAR SENTENECES. I ain't been romantic about the event. If you opened your bloody eyes and for one miniute, let out whatever idea is in your head, then you would see I ain't disagreeing with you on one or two matters. I am fully aware what the the bad bits, if you bloody gave yourself a chance you would have seen clearly that I did refer and acknowledge the nasty bits, here and in other history threads throughout this board! Your argument does not provide and is pointless, so lets just return to the topic of the thread
As for the last bit, you are being highely melodramtic. It was their nationality / loyality to a country that came into question. Some who left (not all) were not all angels and were responsible for the deaths of volunteers and their families and destruction of property. THey had no qualms when it was happening to Catholic / Republicans
Again, I ask, how come when the deaths of Catholics occurred the papers ignored their religion, yet when a Protestant died from the war, the Brits made damn sure their religion was mentioned. The protestants were no angels with their snobbish attitude to Catholics either. They were tolerated simply because of bad blood from previous decades (eg getting the bhest land etc - NOT SAYING THAT WAS RIGHT)0 -
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomwalrusgumble wrote: »Right:rolleyes: Home before Christmas, the "Glorious War". Friends and siblings, pub teams and clubs joining up, did not want to be seen left behind. No one foresaw the savagery that would occur in the Somme and elsewhere.
I havent said that. the recruitment campaign was a "popular" one headed by Redmond.Nice to see how the Cork boys get their centre of the universe attitudes from. By using that, it make absolutely NO success in rebutting anything others are saying. So you are telling me that your grandfather saw all the action and knew all the secret goings on in County Cork, never mind West Cork? so he is an expert on what went on elsewhere?
West Cork was fairly unique because it was effectively outside british control like nowhere else in Ireland. Thats how effective the west cork brigade and the flying column was.
These people already co-existed side by side. the area was not under british control as such anyway which is what made it so bizarre that it should happen and so horrific.What do you mean, when you say (directly after telling us you had family members involved in both ww1 and tan war - by deal btw, it was not unique, even Earnie O'Malley's brother died in WW1)"You still have to call it as it was". call the war what? over one or two incidents that happened after the truce (therefore should not be considered part of the tan war!) I have already said, Protestants were involved in the IRA, be it in active services or civilan assistance
My point is that I dont need to read it in history books and unlike harte I heard it first hand. Tom Barry was a WWI veteran too.
What was unique about west Cork was that it was a virtually no go area for the British and over which they had no real control. So these were not one or two incidents but were as big as Bloody Sunday were casualty wise or the Hunger strikes and should be viewed as such.They were highly significant.Of course its going to be a popular recruitment, ordinary person (no not the shop keeper or land owner) had little or no money. We had the Dublin lock out only 1 years prior. What do you mean
That was a labour issue and affected protestants and catholics
I ain't been romantic about the event. If you opened your bloody eyes and for one miniute, let out whatever idea is in your head, then you would see I ain't disagreeing with you on one or two matters.
The historians comments are weird and its like they dont want to acknowledge the bad bits for fear of alienating their audience. History can be looked at factually from a distance.As for the last bit, you are being highely melodramtic. It was their nationality / loyality to a country that came into question.
I dont see how that could be realistically questioned by people who were aware of the political climate before during and after WWI0 -
Advertisement
-
Anybody who fought with the British Empire anywhere fought for freedomI havent said that. the recruitment campaign was a "popular" one headed by Redmond.
West Cork was fairly unique because it was effectively outside british control like nowhere else in Ireland. Thats how effective the west cork brigade and the flying column was.
These people already co-existed side by side. the area was not under british control as such anyway which is what made it so bizarre that it should happen and so horrific.
My point is that I dont need to read it in history books and unlike harte I heard it first hand. Tom Barry was a WWI veteran too.
What was unique about west Cork was that it was a virtually no go area for the British and over which they had no real control. So these were not one or two incidents but were as big as Bloody Sunday were casualty wise or the Hunger strikes and should be viewed as such.They were highly significant.
That was a labour issue and affected protestants and catholics
The historians comments are weird and its like they dont want to acknowledge the bad bits for fear of alienating their audience. History can be looked at factually from a distance.
I dont see how that could be realistically questioned by people who were aware of the political climate before during and after WWI
RE Popularity. There can be no denying that the recruitment was popular and taken up by thousands (not to mention business owners ready to take on any contracts for work). However, to assume it was because they all wanted to fight for the Crown or for this country is folly, for some of the reasons explained by myself and others (and something you are well aware of )
RE West Cork. Thanks for the history lesson on the uniqueness of COrk IRA:rolleyes:, but it still does not answer my question. I asked was your grandfather involved in the running and planning of all attacks, was he privy to all information. What I mean is, there was not 60 people (including house owners, people who gave shelter), directly involved in say eg Kilmichael. Anything else people hear was potentially hearsay. I assume you have looked at the Witness Statements by people who claimed (and were) at an incident during this time, and the discrepancies (for various reasons) in detail regarding deaths, ammo, etc (that by the way is not saying, in any shape or form, that you or your fine grandfather was incorrect, I am merely responding to, what I preceive (others might not) to be an inadequate response)
Yes West Cork, we truely out of the control of Britian. However, prior to the truce as you full well know, the major barracks and garrissons were still in tact and people were working underground (at this point I highely doubt I need to explain further, and note there were 10,000 + British service men in the area).
But the last bit suggests that because the truce had been called and because the british presence had rescided by the time these incidents occurred, it was so strange and rare that it was extremely hard for even a person living in cave not to find out about them? Could you confirm this please?
Re history book. Yes you are absolutely right. I am not suggesting that though. I was merely noting a source you used (not neccessarily, if I understand, that you inteneded to assist your argument in anyway) I am not advocating the history book matter at all. I dropped it when you made yourself clear 3 posts ago.
One other matter though, which is a shame, is not, not everyone made statements etc, and many brought their experience to the grave. Which is a shame. Their voices/ attitudes were not recorded0
Advertisement