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

Jackie laughlin

What the movie failed to show was that the civil war was not fought over socialism, or partition or anything substantial. Some argue that all that was at issue was the oath.

A Dub in Glasgo

Some argue that it was fought over socialism, partition, something substantial and the oath. However, can you show how the oath was the only issue for the civil war?

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

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?)

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.

walrusgumble wrote:

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)

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.

walrusgumble

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

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

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.

Steady on old chap ! I merely made the point that relatively few civilians offered "shelter, information and support" to the IRA - or anyone else who styled themselves as the IRA or their successors - in any era. That is why terrorist organisations are that - they do not get "shelter in every house", or even most house. Of course some people did support them though.

walrusgumble wrote:

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.

How many people did shelter him ? What percentage of the population was that ? Do not forget when the men of 1916 surrendered they were shouted at and spat at by the good citizens of Dublin.

walrusgumble wrote:

where do you think tom barry and co went after doing mission, their homes?

They certainly did not go to the homes of the innocent protestants who were murdered or burnt out by the IRA.

walrusgumble wrote:

do you honestly believe that all the money funded came from dev's trips to the US?

No. And in the era you now speak of it did not all come from diesel washing either, and it did not turn up in northern bank notes stuffed in a whellie bin or Daz boxes or fireplace in Cork either !

walrusgumble wrote:

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

Sure. Only 120,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British forces in 1939-1942 More than that were volunteers in British forces between 1916-1922.
How many volunteers were in the IRA ? What did they achieve that Ghandi did not ? except death, pain suffering etc inflicted on people.

walrusgumble

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.

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

as for the protestant landlords, not all were innocent,some were informers who sent on information to ric about their suspicions of ira members..

Who mentioned the dreaded "landlords" ? :rolleyes: Not all of the innocent protestants who were victimised or murdered by republicans were landlords. Far from it.

walrusgumble wrote:

it was a war.

Really ? Do you know the UN definition of war ?

walrusgumble wrote:

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.

lol

walrusgumble

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.

vesp

Thats not the point and everyone knows it was not. However, if it was, do you think it would have considered the troubles then a "war" when it did not / does not consider the more recent troubles ( 1969 to the nineties ) a war ?

walrusgumble

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.

Jackie laughlin

A Dub in Glasgo,
I was being charitable when I gave credance to the argument that the civil war was fought over the Oath. The terrible truth is that the Civil War was pointless. It certainly wasn't about partition or socialism. This could have been told in the movie and it would have made for greater accuracy as well as more sophisticated and poignant drama.

csk

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.

Vesp leave aside the Provisional IRA as they are utterly irrelevant.

But Óglaigh na hÉireann simply could not have fought so successfully without the aid of the people. Indeed the successful war fought in the south would not have been possible.

Micahel Collins successful intelligence war is the perfect example of how a lot of ordinary people offered shelter information and support. He had contacts as diverse as typists, postmen, deliverymen to actual Crown officials such as Ned Broy and Daivid Neligan. In fact one historian rightly points out that the greatest tribute paid to Collins was the fact that on his death he had literally hundreds of keys to different people's houses in his possession and that hundreds if not thousands more would have welcomed him in at the drop of a hat. Yes the man who the British labelled a terrorist and a bloodthristy savage, the same man who had a ten thousand pound reward on his head would have been glady welcomed into almost any house in the country! I wonder why?

Also do not forget how most people recognised the Sinn Féin courts over the Crown courts including many Protestant Landlords.

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.

Yes of course you are right they were welcomed back and indeed Ireland was glad to see them. Many had been fighting to free small Nations which included Ireland.Indeed many went on to fight with Óglaigh na hÉireann in the war against the British. Indeed Comandant-General Tom Barry was an ex-British Soldier who fought in Gallipoli. He, as we know, went on to become arguably the greates field commander of the War of Independence.

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.

Once again Vesp why are you bringing in the Nazis to a debate about IRISH HISTORY, if you want to debate about it start your own thread. Your obsession with them is bordering on the perverse at this stage.
Now I know your only come back to this will be to offer some snide remark and attempt a ridiculous qualification along the lines of "not all people fought the British lol" "Nazis did this blah blah blah."

You have nothing intelligent to offer and frankly your anti-Irish bigotry is tiresome, so you are going on the ignore list.

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

you know full well why the UN was set up. even they have not got a clear definition of war.

It is quite clear. The truth is that the terrorist actions of the IRA or any other terrorist group on this island never constituted a war, according to the UN.

Nobody has answered the question / point posed a few post ago : Only 120,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British forces in 1939-1942 More than that were volunteers in British forces between 1916-1922. How many volunteers were in the IRA ?

csk: You obviously are taking the piss wheen you claim an IRA man would have been "glady welcomed into almost any house in the country":D This is the same country where the rebels of 1916 were spat at and jeered after they surrendered. As you would - and did - say yourself, "you have nothing intelligent to offer and frankly your bigotry is tiresome, so you are going on the ignore list."

walrusgumble

many times vesp brings up the troubles and ww1 and ww2 (ok ww1 maybe relevant) when we refer to the 1916-1924 period as to justify his comments which have no basis or revelane to this period. when vesp makes an argument whether we agree or not but keeps it within the time frame of the topic, fine, great we can have a good debate. but comparing the 1916-1924 period with the troubles cant really work, hindsight makes it too easy and one forgets the real reasons that it happened. instead revisionists try to scorn our founding fathers because it lead to the way for what happened in recent times.it wrong to compare the period, as there were different reasons for their occurrance.

walrusgumble

vesp wrote:

It is quite clear. The truth is that the terrorist actions of the IRA or any other terrorist group on this island never constituted a war, according to the UN.

Nobody has answered the question / point posed a few post ago : Only 120,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British forces in 1939-1942 More than that were volunteers in British forces between 1916-1922. How many volunteers were in the IRA ?

csk: You obviously are taking the piss wheen you claim an IRA man would have been "glady welcomed into almost any house in the country":D This is the same country where the rebels of 1916 were spat at and jeered after they surrendered. As you would - and did - say yourself, "you have nothing intelligent to offer and frankly your bigotry is tiresome, so you are going on the ignore list."

again and again you use this. why did people in dublin hurl abuse, because many of the husbands were over in europe fighting in british armies and sending home money to the wifves. i made an attempt on how many ira volunteers there were in activitive service.see previous posts, i have to confirm the no, its pretty easy to get some access to militray records and the like. did the whole of dublin come out and spat and jeered at the volunteers, how many? jesus ye dubs are very fickle. sure didn't many dubs come out a jeer the british army in 1914 Howth gun running, where volunteers gave the army the run around and successfully got arms into howth.some army personnel get mad and then comes the bachaleor walk massacre!again my learned colleague, the attitude in dublin always differed to thaat in the country hence the phrase jackeens.

you find a source were the defintion is clearly stated. in the numberorg trials there was no defintion. an implied and express defintion are two deferent things. as for the un, they have no application to what happened before their existence. i grant that you are correct post 1950 ireland. sure look who has a powerful seat in the un. usa and britain. considering their trap record recently they cant talk or lecture the rest of the world. prior to people like blair, damn all english politicans bar say carson and the two churchills, had any real clue about ireland, its culture or idealogy some hardly ever set foot on irish soil, without at least understanding the irish point of view there an attempt by the british on the irish question was always a british solution to an irish problem. so when you look at that, how the hell would you expect other members of the un to understand the irish situation.

i suggest you read up on a book such as tom barry's to have an idea of the attitude of his communtiy, the level of support they had from the people and the strength of their forces.and it is an honest book as it does refer to the deaths of certain landlords.

i ask you again, how come, it was ok for usa and french to do what they did to gain independence.or for malolm x to be celebrated for his opinions when revisionists then scorn the irish struggle of 1916-1924?lads write history as it happened and not make it up or changed things

the strange fact is, that when you look at irish history, many things were achieved when force was used. you look at the war of independence, the british people and their king was appalled by the violence and they worked to bring it to an end, thus allowing politicans realise something had to give, they came together and talked it out. the same with the troubles.people realised that 40 years of blood shed was not worth it. blair comes in and brings all communities together and continue to talk politics. a revised government of ireland act 1920 was brought about (ie treaty some key changes in it) it may not have been altered were it not for the hindsight that the 1920 act was not workable in the 26 counties.

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

you find a source were the defintion is clearly stated. in the numberorg trials there was no defintion. an implied and express defintion are two deferent things. as for the un, they have no application to what happened before their existence. i grant that you are correct post 1950 ireland. sure look who has a powerful seat in the un. usa and britain. considering their trap record recently they cant talk or lecture the rest of the world. prior to people like blair, damn all english politicans bar say carson and the two churchills, had any real clue about ireland, its culture or idealogy some hardly ever set foot on irish soil, without at least understanding the irish point of view there an attempt by the british on the irish question was always a british solution to an irish problem. so when you look at that, how the hell would you expect other members of the un to understand the irish situation.

i suggest you read up on a book such as tom barry's to have an idea of the attitude of his communtiy, the level of support they had from the people and the strength of their forces.and it is an honest book as it does refer to the deaths of certain landlords.

:rolleyes: What makes the book honest ? " it is an honest book as it does refer to the deaths of certain landlords."
:rolleyes:

Make excuses all you want about the "trap" records of the members of the "un" ; the truth is that the terrorist actions of the IRA or any other terrorist group on this island never constituted a war, according to the UN.


N.B. Perhaps if those who indoctrinated you with your view of history had put as much effort in to teaching you spelling you would be better off.

walrusgumble

vesp wrote:

:rolleyes: What makes the book honest ? " it is an honest book as it does refer to the deaths of certain landlords."
:rolleyes:

Make excuses all you want about the "trap" records of the members of the "un" ; the truth is that the terrorist actions of the IRA or any other terrorist group on this island never constituted a war, according to the UN.


N.B. Perhaps if those who indoctrinated you with your view of history had put as much effort in to teaching you spelling you would be better off.

ha i assure you my friend, the spellings are a mere cause of bad typing, but you point out pointless faults such as careless spelling to walk away from being challanged (snob).

I agree with the your comment with regard to the ira of the present times.

However, I ask you for your view, do you consider Ireland of 1916-1924 as not being a period of war, solely on the ground that the UN who were not in existence in this time, say so?

I believe we are in agreement with the issue of the troubles, so at this point reference to it is irrelevant.

I have attempted to define the defintion of war from credible sources, yet you, who raised the issue of the UN, have failed to produce THE UN defintion of war. Anticapating with much delight your futher nuggets of wisdom! And by the way old boy, would you care to point to a reference that states that at no time did the UN referred that the period of 1916-1924 Ireland did not constitute a war.

Jackie laughlin

Any chance of getting this back on subject matter?

Jim Comic

a play based on tom barry's book is on at the everyman soon

http://www.everymanpalace.com/2011/03/guerilla-days-in-ireland/

jonniebgood1

No need to resurrect old thread.

Closed.