Talk:Arms Crisis

"They did import them"
According to Jack Lynch speaking to the Dáil at : "'I also want to assure the House that these arms have not been imported, have not been landed in this country, and that the precautions I have taken will ensure they will not be landed.'"Do you have a different source? Demiurge 20:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Weren't they landed and then seized?

Lapsed Pacifist 01:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but if they were landed then seized without any of them getting to their intended recipients, then the smuggling attempt did not succeed. Demiurge 08:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"the perceived role of Fine Gael's Cosgrave in defending the institutions of the state" in the RTÉ programme on the topic it appears far from helping the state Cosgrave was supplying information to the British government. Given that the recent released documents support the proposition that the activity was sanction by the appropriate minister [of the government of the day] and that military documents also released support that Lynch was aware Cosgrave was involved in a treasonous act.

as a proud republican i cant see anything wrong at the time with importing arms to defend the irish people from attack Bouse23 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Title
The title of this article is far too vague, it could apply to dozens of crises in various countries. How about Dublin Arms Trial, which I would regard as the title that would mean most to people who already know a bit about the case? PatGallacher 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It could certainly have an Irish geographic limitation added to the title, but the article is about more than just the Trial, so using 'Arms Trial' wouldn't be an accurate title--Rye1967 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised there is no mention jeanne (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)in this article on Colm Condon, who was Ireland's Attourney-General at the time and who subsequentlyjeanne (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC) resigned in protest at the dismissals.I know a bit about this as I was once married to Colm Condon'sgreat-nephew.jeanne (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi
What does it add to the article to say that somebody once claimed that Albert Luykx was a former Nazi? Are we meant to infer that the whole thing was a Nazi plot, or that Haughey, Blaney et al. were Nazis by association? If the inclusion of the fact has a definite purpose, it should be stated explicitly in the article. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be there. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "somebody once claimed" is nonsense, he was a convicted Nazi and had been sentenced to death for it in Belgium and escaped from prison, describing him solely as a "businessman" is entirely misleading. It's now sourced x2, and theres no reason for you or anybody to remove that fact just because you don't like it. "Are we meant to infer that the whole thing was a Nazi plot, or that Haughey, Blaney et al. were Nazis by association?" that's laughable, I don't know how you made the leap to that? It's a simple description, just like it says he was a "businessman", he also happened to be a "convicted Nazi". It implies nothing but exactly what is says on the tin. IrishSpook (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, no, it's not just as simple as "does what it says on the tin." This is an article about the Arms Crisis of 1970. Luykx in 1970 was not a Nazi; he was a businessman. And it was in that capacity that he was involved in the attempt to import arms, as Haughey and Blaney were involved in their capacity as ministers, James Kelly in his capacity as army officer, and John Kelly in his capacity as republican leader. There is no suggestion, and there never has been a suggestion, that Luykx used former Nazi contacts to procure arms or anything of that nature. Therefore, describing him solely as a businessman is not misleading in the context of this article. The article talks about Haughey without any reference to the Moriarity Tribunal, or, indeed, to his dubious property deals in the 1960s. It should be the same for Luykx. If that "convicted Nazi" is left as it is, readers will infer that the attempted arms importation was in some way linked to Nazism. It's not laughable, and it's not a laughing matter. Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Which IRA?
The article says that "Haughey even met with the IRA Chief of Staff Cathal Goulding" and that contact began in October 1969 (a couple of months before the split in the Anti-Treaty IRA). Should both categories be included, since Cathal Goulding was never a member of the Provisionals. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't give you sources, though I'm very sure that they exist, but I do know that the people who were involved in the attempt to import arms – politicians and military both – were aware of the impending split and were determined that the arms would go to the "right" side. I can remember Neil Blaney being interviewed on television about twenty years after the event and saying, "well, we weren't going to give them to the communists, were we?"
 * The question you're really asking is, seeing that the time-span straddles two IRAs (or rather, two Wikipedia articles: you won't find a reference to an organisation called "Irish Republican Army 1922–69" in any reliable sources), should we not have two templates and two cats? My answer would be that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If there are two candidates and one is clearly the more appropriate, go with that one. I confess am not a fan of these templates that have been springing up on Irish articles recently, but I would be very much against doubling them up in cases such as this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)