In the name of the republic

Balmed Out

http://www.iftn.ie/news/?act1=record&only=1&aid=73&rid=4285888&tpl=archnews&force=1

TV3 MONDAY 18TH @ 9PM

Might be interesting. I think its a two parter exploring executions of civilians by the Ira with the first episode in Laois and the second in Cork.

pedroeibar1

A bit amateurish in parts (due to bad direction) but worthwhile, entertaining and instructive. Eunan O'Halpin did not mince his words. Diarmuid O'Hegarty is a person to whom more attention is merited, but the 'airbrushed' version is no doubt more popular (populist?). I will watch part 2.

gobnaitolunacy

A decent shot by TV3 at commissioning a documentary. Makes an interesting change from all the imported stuff and celebrity muck they usually host. Suffice it to say the subject matter of this one will make for uncomfortable viewing for some.

kt330

I remember a few years ago I was outside thurles at a farm collecting horses. The old man who came to help told me that when they were digging foundations for a shed a couple years previous, they found a skeleton but they were told to cover itup and build away as this would stop the shed building. Anyway the man said a man went missing in the area during the war and they taught that it was him. I wanted to report it but never did

maithanfear

I could only watch half of this the other night. Seemed like a poor attempt to discredit the IRA which seems to be the thing nowadays. I have no time for documentaries which have political agendas.

Neutronale

A poor program really.

He went to find a body and found none.

Then he looked for files on two men supposedly executed only to find they had both survived.

All that was left was his supposition and invective and that of PS O Hegerty who had some gripe or other and wanted to blacken those who put their lives on the line.

cameramonkey

I would agree,very poor, they dug up a field looking for I think three bodies on the say so of a long dead witness. They looked through the records for people missing in the area and found two likely candidates. After a lot of expenses, I suppose, they found no evidence of any burials in the field but further added that the two missing men were not missing after all. Could they not have found out that these two men actually survived the before digging up the field but I am sure that would not have suited the programme makers agenda, they seem to want to prove their own thesis rather than examine the evidence available..When they could not prove this they ended up in Carlow where again they really failed to prove that the guy who was kllled by the IRA was not responsible for giving information, in fact the whole section really was about why the IRA did not give his body back to his family and lied about where it was put.

The programme seemed to set out with an agenda of saying that the IRA had waged an illegitimate war on civilians who they(IRA) deemed were guilty of giving information to the British. It seemed pretty badly directed and maybe when they failed to get the big sensational expose of finding a body they found that they had nothing of substance to relate.

Very poor show.

Neutronale

cameramonkey wrote: »

I would agree,very poor, they dug up a field looking for I think three bodies on the say so of a long dead witness. They looked through the records for people missing in the area and found two likely candidates. After a lot of expenses, I suppose, they found no evidence of any burials in the field but further added that the two missing men were not missing after all. Could they not have found out that these two men actually survived the before digging up the field but I am sure that would not have suited the programme makers agenda, they seem to want to prove their own thesis rather than examine the evidence available..When they could not prove this they ended up in Carlow where again they really failed to prove that the guy who was kllled by the IRA was not responsible for giving information, in fact the whole section really was about why the IRA did not give his body back to his family and lied about where it was put.

The programme seemed to set out with an agenda of saying that the IRA had waged an illegitimate war on civilians who they(IRA) deemed were guilty of giving information to the British. It seemed pretty badly directed and maybe when they failed to get the big sensational expose of finding a body they found that they had nothing of substance to relate.

Very poor show.

Tho as the lad from Rubicon said, "nice kiln..." :rolleyes:

Neutronale

And to add to ones discomfort, they had a lot of fat fifties "IRA men" roamimg around "terrorising" the poor locals even tho O'Hegarty makes it plain the power of life and death was placed in the hands of teenage brigadeers as he called them...

pedroeibar1

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Suffice it to say the subject matter of this one will make for uncomfortable viewing for some.

Prescient

Neutronale

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Prescient

I think people are more interested in 'facts' and 'evidence' rather than the same ole Independent.ie anti-nationalist invective :rolleyes:

pedroeibar1

Neutronale wrote: »

I think people are more interested in 'facts' and 'evidence' rather than the same ole Independent.ie abti-nationalist invective :rolleyes:

....and out of the blue came a totally irrelevant, inaccurate comment
Read my initial post on this thread; where did I support anything you suggest? Where did I make any comment on facts or evidence? I support both, which are what history is about, not some starry-eyed mythology that deifies somebody just because he/she was a ‘nationalist’. Where in the first program were there

Neutronale wrote: »

a lot of fat fifties "IRA men" roamimg around "terrorising" the poor locals.

I have admiration for those who put themselves in harm’s way for their beliefs, even if I do not share those beliefs. The sad thing about the ‘History’ board in recent months is that too many nasty, bigoted views have been posted, stifling debate and driving away posters whose valuable and worthwhile comments are missed.
If you have a criticism of the program post it, with examples, facts and evidence (to which you seem much endeared.) Currently your last post adds absolutely nothing to this thread.

ejmaztec

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

....and out of the blue came a totally irrelevant, inaccurate comment
Read my initial post on this thread; where did I support anything you suggest? Where did I make any comment on facts or evidence? I support both, which are what history is about, not some starry-eyed mythology that deifies somebody just because he/she was a ‘nationalist’.

I wouldn't have liked to have upset Martin Corry had I been around at the time that the bodies were stacking up around him. :eek:

pedroeibar1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I wouldn't have liked to have upset Martin Corry had I been around at the time that the bodies were stacking up around him. :eek:

Cathal Brugha stopped Collins’ Squad from killing several due to insufficient evidence of their complicity. Collins accepted that reasoning and saw - for a while at least - the need to prevent a downward spiral. Martin Corry sort of proves my point. Judge, jury and executioner. We vilify the likes of Heptonstall (him of ‘98 infamy) but some regard Corry as a hero, despite his equally murderous antics and of course the fact that he had to stand down because of bribery and corruption.
(I’m assuming you mean THAT Corry, and not the Lions player who also was known to stack bodies around him (on the the rugby pitch.);)

Snickers Man

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

.
(I’m assuming you mean THAT Corry, and not the Lions player who also was known to stack bodies around him (on the the rugby pitch.);)

Good name for an English rugby captain, eh?

ejmaztec

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Cathal Brugha stopped Collins’ Squad from killing several due to insufficient evidence of their complicity. Collins accepted that reasoning and saw - for a while at least - the need to prevent a downward spiral. Martin Corry sort of proves my point. Judge, jury and executioner. We vilify the likes of Heptonstall (him of ‘98 infamy) but some regard Corry as a hero, despite his equally murderous antics and of course the fact that he had to stand down because of bribery and corruption.
(I’m assuming you mean THAT Corry, and not the Lions player who also was known to stack bodies around him (on the the rugby pitch.);)

I think those bodies were recovered, so I'm definitely referring to the other Corry.

Neutronale

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

....and out of the blue came a totally irrelevant, inaccurate comment
Read my initial post on this thread; where did I support anything you suggest? Where did I make any comment on facts or evidence? I support both, which are what history is about, not some starry-eyed mythology that deifies somebody just because he/she was a ‘nationalist’. Where in the first program were there
I have admiration for those who put themselves in harm’s way for their beliefs, even if I do not share those beliefs. The sad thing about the ‘History’ board in recent months is that too many nasty, bigoted views have been posted, stifling debate and driving away posters whose valuable and worthwhile comments are missed.
If you have a criticism of the program post it, with examples, facts and evidence (to which you seem much endeared.) Currently your last post adds absolutely nothing to this thread.

pedroeibar1,
You posted a fair comment in the first instance, it was your "prescient" agreement with gobnaitolunacys baiting that drew my reaction.

I havent seen many "nasty, bigoted views" on H&H but the fact is history is still being argued over and people can be passionate about it...

brennan1979

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html

John Borgonovo has a review of the programme here.

Balmed Out

brennan1979 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html

John Borgonovo has a review of the programme here.

excellent review

brennan1979

http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/03/28/tv-documentary-review-in-the-name-of-the-republic/#.UVQuaVdTGSq

There's another review here from John Dorney.

Neutronale

brennan1979 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html

John Borgonovo has a review of the programme here.

The obvious lesson here is: Finish your research before you rent the JCB.

Neutronale

brennan1979 wrote: »

http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/03/28/tv-documentary-review-in-the-name-of-the-republic/#.UVQuaVdTGSq

There's another review here from John Dorney.

O’Halpin concluded, ‘It is time to seek truth and justice for disappeared’.
‘Where’s their memorial?’ While this reviewer has nothing against that, whatever
their numbers may be, this was a bafflingly biased programme. It presented and
inflated all the bad things the IRA did, shorn of context while proposing a
thesis of hundreds of disappeared which was never even remotely proved.

Baffling not only because Eunan O’Halpin’s ancestors were all in the IRA of
that era, but also because elsewhere he has written (in for instance, this fairly balanced piece and here on The Irish Story) that his research suggests
that in the brutal low intensity war of that period, Crown forces were
considerably more indiscriminate in their violence than were republican
guerrillas. So why the sensational anti-republican tone of ‘In the Name of the
Republic’?

.

ejmaztec

Neutronale wrote: »

The obvious lesson here is: Finish your research before you rent the JCB.

..or don't be a cheapskate, and do a proper job and dig up the entire 30 acre plot.

Hidalgo

brennan1979 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/separating-fact-from-folklore-226559.html

John Borgonovo has a review of the programme here.

Borgonovo's piece about Corry and the mythical beast is quite interesting.

Neutronale

O'Halpin seems to have taken up the baton from Peter Hart...good luck with that :rolleyes:

Hippo

maithanfear wrote: »

I could only watch half of this the other night. Seemed like a poor attempt to discredit the IRA which seems to be the thing nowadays. I have no time for documentaries which have political agendas.

I would imagine it's virtually impossible to make a documentary about any aspect of the civil war without accusations of a political agenda, even after 90 years. It was certainly a flawed effort but deserves some credit for at least discussing the issue.

Neutronale

Hippo wrote: »

I would imagine it's virtually impossible to make a documentary about any aspect of the civil war without accusations of a political agenda, even after 90 years. It was certainly a flawed effort but deserves some credit for at least discussing the issue.

Is it discusing the issue or is it attmpting to create an issue where there is none?

Seriously, a historian hears about buried bodies and goes and starts digging, is that a sensible approach? He ends up with no body and his two suspect informers who were never executed...very poor...

kabakuyu

Maybe we should not be too critical,Kevin Myers thinks it was brilliant:rolleyes: and is now quoting it as fact

THIS new IRA is not dissident:it belongs to the tradition embodied by Tom Barry and Martin Corry, the IRA leader in Cork city, who – as we learnt in Monday's brilliant 'In The Name Of The Republic' on TV3 – was responsible for the disappearance and murder of perhaps scores of local men, mostly Protestants, between 1919 and 1923.

Now if I recall correctly,O'Halpin never mentioned the relgious faith of the men executed, so should I assume that Myers has more knowledge about these events than O'Halpin

This is another gem from the same article

The might of the British empire in Dublin that Easter Monday consisted of a few unarmed Irish DMP men, six of whom were cold-bloodedly shot

While I not an expert on the Rising I do recall that the British Army had at that time the following units which saw action on the first day of the Rising, 10th Royal Dublin Fusiliers,3rd Royal Irish Regiment,3rd Royal Irish Rifles, and cavalry detachments of the 5th and 12th lancers.Hardly just a few DMP men as Myers infers.Also if anybody can point me in the right direction to confirm the deaths of the 6 policemen as stated by Myers, I would be grateful, this site contends that there were just 3 DMP casualties http://irishmedals.org/gpage35.html

Myers article here http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/we-cant-afford-to-get-romantic-about-guerrilla-days-in-ireland-29162083.html

maithanfear

Hippo wrote: »

I would imagine it's virtually impossible to make a documentary about any aspect of the civil war without accusations of a political agenda, even after 90 years. It was certainly a flawed effort but deserves some credit for at least discussing the issue.

I can remember a while back that there was a thread on this forum titled 'British Atrocities in Ireland'. The title name had to be changed to include Irish atrocities so as not to upset the pro British elements on Boards.ie. I'd say you would be very unlikely to see a documentary let a lone a series on RTE or TV3 named as that.

ejmaztec

maithanfear wrote: »

I can remember a while back that there was a thread on this forum titled 'British Atrocities in Ireland'. The title name had to be changed to include Irish atrocities so as not to upset the pro British elements on Boards.ie. I'd say you would be very unlikely to see a documentary let a lone a series on RTE or TV3 named as that.

You criticise a TV programme because you regard it as one sided, yet you think it okay to have a one sided thread on British atrocities in Ireland?

GRMA

This is a history forum dealing with facts - Myers should be left outside. Good article in the examiner about the series.

Long story short: poorly researched piece of utter rubbish