Jd66 wrote:No offence folks, but what does all the above impentrable stuff have to do with the Irish War of Independence?
Take it to a WWI thread.
Na Fianna Éireann wrote:Jd66 wrote:No offence folks, but what does all the above impentrable stuff have to do with the Irish War of Independence?
Take it to a WWI thread.
That made me laugh thank you , simple fact is the ordinary man doesn't want to know about all this crap revisionism, historically we stuffed the British empire using guerrilla tactics and won the hearts of the majority of the people who kept our weapons, gave us logistical help and supported the IRA in it's war, who really gives a toss what is written now days as it's only speculation about what some one was thinking 100 years on ward, fact is we started a revolution that fragmented and ended the British Empire and got 26 counties free now that was some feat to do. So what if some Unionist supporters were killed along the way as they supported the enemy and had surpressed the Irish population with tithes and penal laws for almost 200 years and were seen as colonialists which is exactly what they are, Our soldiers fought a war and won it. I rest my case................. fought an enemy who stole our lands murdered our peoples for centuries and engaged them in war fare also took good care of their 5th columnists as well by ethnically cleansing them. This is the nature of war, the nature of most wars in the 20th century from Korea, Vietnam, China, the list goes on.
No offence folks, but what does all the above impentrable stuff have to do with the Irish War of Independence?
The intelligence officers were probably “on a spree rather than on official business”; they were shot almost instantaneously, allowing no opportunity for interrogation; and the senior officer was targeted out of revenge for the killing of [Frank] Busteed’s mother, not to extort information.
For Hart, the Dunmanway “massacre” was a relatively rare eruption of endemic sectarian antipathy into lethal violence. He accepted that the unnamed perpetrators were probably influenced by a medley of suppositions, mistaken or otherwise, about their targets.... Nowhere did Hart claim that most republican violence was directed against Protestants, that sectarianism was the dominant strand in republican mentality...
michaelcarragher wrote:To return to the thread: what do people think of Terror in Ireland 1916-1923 (ed. David Fitzpatrick)? Bannerman has a thoughtful and very fair review in the penultimate issue of History Ireland.
michaelcarragher wrote:It will be interesting to follow what looks to become another fascinating exchange of views on this contentious issue.
My problem with the whole Kilmichael debate … is that the "false surrender" / "real surrender" controversy has almost become the shorthand encapsulation for the entire ambush, to the point where it obscures the bigger picture…. using [Kilmichael] to characterise the conduct of the entire War of Independence really is generalising from the particular to a ridiculous degree.
The prisoners were remorsefully shot, as it would have been impossible to bring them away under the heavy fire.
The more human reality is that everyone at Kilmichael was terrified and confused, pumped full of adrenaline and in full fight-or-flight mode. To expect them to snap from this state of mind into a normal humane one is unrealistic. In every war prisoners and surrendering men are killed, in hot or cold blood. As early as 1 September 1914 a German general and some of his staff were captured by the British, then in rampant retreat from Mons:The prisoners were remorsefully shot, as it would have been impossible to bring them away under the heavy fire.
However “remorsefully” it may have been done, such killing is no less troubling than any hot-blooded killing that took place at Kilmichael. It was hardly Katyn or My Lai, after all. All combatants were hard men who knew what they were getting into; death in war is as inevitable as it’s regrettable.
Part of Ms Morrison’s thesis is that Barry circulated the false surrender account to camouflage his own mistake in exposing his men to Auxie fire. Her account is very persuasive. Yet this conclusion is more relevant to biography than history.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest