User talk:Mediahistorian

Kilmichael
Hi,

Re the Kilmichael Ambush article. The first point here is that footnotes are not there for long passages of text. Their purpose is, firstly, to show sources for the information provided and secondly to include information that gets in the way of the flow of the main article. In this case, this means the details of the dispute between Hart, Ryan and Murphy. The details of this are not of interest to the reader who wants to find out about the Kilmichael ambush. However, the reader will want to know that there are multiple versions of what actually happend on the day. However, I don't feel that this dispute is worthy of more than a footnore in the article.

Second; The quote from Barry is not taken from Hart's book, it is taken from Barry's "Guerrilla days in Ireland". Barry explicitly says that in this ambush he would not be taking prisoners. Therefore, this would appear to support the view that the killing of all the Auxiliaries, for whatever reason, was to some extent pre-meditated. It is not unremarkable because Barry chose to single it out in his book, while he did not do the same for any other speechs he made.

The fact that Bary was present on the day of course means that his account is important, in fact, I based the section on the ambush itself almost entirely on the passage in "Guerrilla Days". However, this does not mean that it cannot be challenged. People get things wrong sometimes when they re-collect. They exagerate, they fail to remember, they placetheir own actions in the best light, etc. We are not here to give judgment on whether Hat or his critics are right or wrong, only to present the facts as we can best assemble them.

Regards,

Jdorney 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi jdorney,

Got your message - don't know how to reply apart from here.

You reinstated one of my earlier edits – there were a couple of typos in it and History Ireland web address is left out. I reinstated my later one as it is more accurate and comprehensive.

I am sure we can resolve this main text versus footnote thing.

Tom Barry's is a first hand account, Hart's is second hand and, while it challenges Barry's account on the false surrender, that had been uncontested for nearly 80 years, it is problematic for a number of reasons (Hart’s IRA veteran interview dating problem being just one issue - there are others that are equally serious and probably should be written up in their own right). It is not that Hart accused Barry of false recollection; he accused him of being a deliberate liar. That is a serious charge that, taken with the questions on his research, takes Hart's contribution out of the realm of factual comment and into the realm of polemic. Doubly so, as, in the debate in History Ireland, Hart addresses not one of the simple and direct questions put to him on these matters, that might help resolve the anomalies with regard to his research methods and findings.

On your point on ‘Guerilla Days’, I do not have Hart’s book in front of me but if I remember correctly Hart does cite Barry's comments to his troops as supportive of his (Hart’s) view that Barry had intended to kill all the Auxiliaries. The inference you also derive from Barry’s eve of battle speech is a matter of opinion - one that many do not share - rather than one of fact, and that should therefore be part of a section on comment rather than fact. It would be illogical for Barry to infer (he usually stated his opinions plainly) that he intended to kill all of the Auxiliaries, and then to write explicitly that the false surrender, leading to IRA fatalities, was the reason why he would not allow prisoners to be taken during the engagement. It does not make sense. Incidentally, Hart is factually, and spectacularly, wrong is his assertion that Barry first mentioned the false surrender in ‘Guerilla Days’ in 1949. Hart is also wrong - these are matters of undisputable fact - in his assertion that Barry only later invented the story of the false surrender. It was admitted publicly to have been a widespread story of the encounter in the area very soon after the ambush in November 1920. So, yes, put in Hart’s questionable quibble, but give the reader the opportunity to know that there are serious questions that undermine it, and that the debate is important – how history is written is sometimes as important as the facts it attempts to unearth.

I suggest that the entire section we have a methodological difference on goes into a paragraph headed "Controversy" or "debate" or "dispute". How or why historians differ is an important part of the history of the Ambush at this stage. I think readers will be interested in that. After all it has featured on the BBC, History Ireland, Indymedia.ie, in newspapers and magazines, in two books, in reviews of Hart's work and in public challenges to Hart to resolve the dating and other anomalies. A history of the Ambush is difficult to write without giving an explanation of the historical dispute that has grown up in its wake, after the publishing sensation that was Hart's highly publicised allegation in 1998 that Tom Barry was a liar, and that the War of independence and its aftermath was an exercise in “ethnic cleansing”.

What do you think?

Regards,

Media Historian

Hi, I do see the points you're making. Perhaps a "controversey" section would not be such a bad idea after all. Certainly all that text is too long for a footnote.

Hart has taken an awful lot of stick over the Kilmichael ambush and has not properly answered the questions raised by Meda Ryan and Brian Murphy in History Ireland. This casts major doubt over his work.

However, if you read his general works, "The IRA and its Enemies", "The IRA at War" and his contribution to "The Irish Revolution", you will find exhaustively researched work, with a highly intelligent analysis. While he does, in view overstate the "sectarian-ethnic" dimension of the conflict in the south, he doesn't deserve to be demonised. Meda Ryan, for all her extensive knowledge of the period, is not unbiased, as the title of her book, "Tom Barry, IRA Freedom Fighter" illustrates.

It is important to remember the big picture when wrtiting about Kilmichael, or the post-truce killings at Dunmanway. At Kilmichael, Barry's men probably fell victim to a false surrender, but he admits to then ignoring subsequent attempts by the auxiliaries to give themselves up and had them all killed. Regardless of whether there was a false surrendeer or not in the first place, in strict terms, this is a war crime. It was a dirty war and both sides were ruthless at times. The British reciprocated at Clonmult, in February 1921, when they killed 12 IRA volunteers they had trapepd in a house, alleging a false surrender.

At Dunmanway, the 12 people killed may or may not have been spies, but they were still unarmed civilians and were killed after the truce, when all military operations were supposed to have ended. When criticising Hart, I feel it is important not to lose sight of these facts.

Jdorney 17:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)