Originally Posted by Gee Bag
Not everything that happened during the War of Independence and it's aftermath was wonderful and glorious.
Historians are supposed to question what happened in past, not blindly accept orthodoxy.
I find the name calling/labelling highlighted in your post above childish. People have different opinions. Get over it.
Harts methodology and sources he relied on in his claims re Tom Barry are amateurish and incompetent. If people want to hold him up as a credible historian lets judge him by those standards. I believe that Hart, and those like him who make such damaging claims on little or no evidence, have an agenda. Sometimes its simply to make money, but sometimes not.
I've no problem with new, credible, theories, none whatsoever. I don't mind being challenged or having my historical world "turned upside down". My opinions on the hunger strike in 1981 has been utterly shook up for example in recent years with the allegations and revelations.
Hart however, is not credible. A fool. Worse are those who subscribe to his accusations, especially about Kilmichael.