Talk:Irish War of Independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Suggested Future Additions

• Brief mention of Home Rule and development of Irish nationalism
• Section on violence in North during period -incl sectarian violence (claimed more lives than guerrilla campaign in south) and "Belfast Boycott"
• Section on Treaty, Partition, Oath, - why civil war broke out
• Long terms effects in aftermath section

Jdorney 09:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

em somebody should change the part where it says that the RIC had increased its membership from 1919 to 1921 because the RIC disbanded because so many members were being shot and hundreds left. The RIC was taken over by the Black and Tans who were much more ruthless. I would put it in but I don't really want to make much changes to the article but I will change it if I see it again because it is wrong. Dubmat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.107.155 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong. The Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries were both aprts of the RIC, in theory at least. They certainly never took over the RIC and the force was not disbanded until early 1922. Jdorney (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Someone wrote that in the Truce the British government accepted Irish republicans as "a seperate government" It most definitely did not. Both sides played clever wordgames but the British were quite clear that they would not, and did not, accept the legitimacy of de Valera's government. They accepted them as reflecting a majority of Irish opinion, which is quite different. I've changed the wording to reflect that. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 28 June 2005 23:14 (UTC)

A couple of points re Lapsed's edits:

• Calling Collins "cannier" than de Valera is POV. Collins was actually far experienced both in the methodology of revolution and in the practicalities of waging war.

1. He was a longterm member and activist in the IRB. De Valera was not.
2. He took a hands-on approach to leading the IRA during the war. De Valera was either in gaol or in the US for most of it. His demand for an attack on the Custom House was regarded by all those with military experience as absurd. It was said that only someone as out of touch with the military aspect of the war as deV was, being abroad so much, could have proposed it. The more militarily experienced Collins, who had spent the previous year on the run in Ireland running the war, not wining and dining politicans in US hotels like deV, knew it was madness. So saying he was more militarily experienced is accurate. Using the word "canny" is POV.

• The references to Pat Finucane have no relevance to this article. Using modern reference points that aren't part of the contemporary storyline should not be done. It is for the reader to spot modern parallels, not for the writer to push them. Even if the link is obvious, it should not be used. An article about the 1919-21 war should stick to those dates. At most a little scope exists for things that happened in a year or two afterwards. But including a little aside about the 1980s in not something that NPOV articles about the early 1920s can do.

Because of these points, I am going to take out the 'cannier' and Pat Finucane references, and reinsert the objective fact about Collins's greater military experience, which is the consensus view among historians. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 29 June 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Title of this article: Why not "Irish War of Independence"

Practically every reference to this article that I've seen uses this construction: [[Anglo-Irish war|Irish war of independence]] . There were 1000 years of Anglo-Irish wars (or rebellions, depending on your POV), so why is this one uniquely called that? What is unique about it is that it was the war of independence that actually secured independence. I was about to enter a Request to Move, but wonder if I'm missing something really obvious and can avoid wasting everybody's time. So what is it? --Red King 10:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Both terms are in widespread use. For what it's worth, the Oxford Companion to Irish History describes it as the "Anglo-Irish War". Under the heading "War of Independence," it simply says: "See Anglo-Irish War." ----Cliodule 17:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard a real Irish person call it the 'Anglo-Irish War'. The War of Independence is far and away the most common. There were many Anglo-Irish wars; only one lead to the freedom of most of the country and that war is distinguished by the precise term 'War of Independence'. "Anglo-Irish War" is a British expression in the same way "Tan War" was/is used by anti-Treaty republicans.

There is a page called Irish War of Independence, but currently it just re-directs you here.

There is apparantly a [Move] function, but I have no idea how it works. Given the possible controversy, it might be sensible to contact an administrator. Get up a petition with lots of Irish names on it, preferably including some they will have heard of.

The rule would seem to be simple - it is a 'War of Independence' when one party asks for nothing except not to be rules any more by the other. And also it must succeed: Biafra was a 'war of secession' or maybe 'civil war'. It would be better if 'civil war' were confined to cases where both sides aspire to rule the entire territory, but that is not the rule, CF the USA's 'Civil War'.

--GwydionM 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - the arrangement of pages seems to have been decided when the page was created in 2003. Click [History] and [Earliest] to get the details.--GwydionM 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC). PPS. Clicking Irish War of Independence will just take you here, since it is a redirect. But the page itself is shown just under the main title and you can get to it from here.

I have no objection to the new title--as I said above, both terms are in widespread use, and one is as good as another. But I must object to some of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the name change.

First, one poster prefers "Irish War of Independence" because "Anglo-Irish War" is a "British" term which "no real Irish person" would use. My response to this line of argument would be: even if that's true--so what? "Real Irish people" don't own this conflict. The British were as much a part of it as the Irish, so I don't see why a term should be disqualified simply because it's British.

Second, Red King objects to the term "Anglo-Irish War" on the grounds that there were many such conflicts. This is a frivolous objection. Everybody knows what is meant by "Anglo-Irish War," just as everybody knows what is meant by "Franco-Prussian War"--despite the fact that there were many wars between France and Prussia.

Third, it can be argued that, by GwydionM's own definition, the conflict of 1919-21 was not, in fact, a War of Independence. The Irish Republican movement wanted much more than just an end to British rule: if that was all it wanted, there would have been no Civil War in 1922-23. What they wanted was an independent republic of the whole island--the republic proclaimed in 1916. What they got instead was dominion status (within the British Empire) for most of the island, and provincial status (within the United Kingdom) for the rest. Civil War ensued precisely because many republicans felt that independence had NOT been achieved.

In essence, by using the term "Irish War of Independence," we privilege ONE perspective on Irish history--the perspective of the pro-Treaty forces in the Civil War. If ever there was a case of "the victors writing the history," it would be this. --Cliodule 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the "Anglo-Irish War" is a "British" term which "no real Irish person" would use is preposterous. In fact the usage of Irish War of Independence has been declining and it is now more widely referred to as the Anglo-Irish War in Irish books, newspapers and sources. Most historians now call it the AAI not the IWOI. I have found myself in an increasing minority in academia and journalism in using IWOI. In fact every single time I have used IWOI in newspaper articles in the last three years the sub-editors have changed it to AIW. IWOI was a fashionable term in Irish historiography up until the 1970s but not any more. BTW "Anglo-Irish War" is not a British term. It is Ireland, not Britain, that uses "Anglo", as in "Anglo-Irish Relations", "Anglo-Irish Agreement", "the Anglo-Irish" etc. Britain uses "British". If it was a British term then it would be "British-Irish War" not "Anglo-Irish War". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re the use of the term in historical circles, the most recent authoritative history of the conflict, Michael Hopkinson 2002, is titled "The Irish war of Independence". Hopkinson also argues that Anglo-Irish War is an exclusively British term and that it is in fact innacuarate as many Irishmen fought on both sides. Personally I'm not that bothered, but War of Independence is the term I have always heard in Ireland. Anyway, wouldn't this energy be better spent re-organising this article than arguing about its name?

Jdorney 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence sounds much more accurate and familiar, although I can hear some republicans replace 'of' with 'for'. I'm doing some work on the Barry/Lynch/Breen etc pages over the next while so I'll change it accordingly there. El Gringo 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally during the A-level unit I just took it was referred to exclusively as the Anglo-Irish War. --84.68.162.114 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

hehe. The key part of that sentence is of course A-Level. When I did the Leaving, it was referred to as the Tan War or the War of Independence, but never by that title. The key part of my sentence was of course Leaving. ;-) Beir bua! 86.42.119.173 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the irish war of independance is slightly NPOV so it should be called the anglo-irish war fot the sake of fairness217.42.148.228 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Highland Light Infantry

Can you folks tell me whether any members that were involved in the shooting of unarmed demonstrators at Miltown Malbay came from the Scottish Highlands? I know the Highland Light Infantry was present at the time of the shooting, but I was wondering if any soldiers from that unit came from the Scottish Highlands.

Thanks in advance.

Best wishes,

Albert

re-organistion

This article has become a bit of a mess. There's far too many small details here now and the flow of the article has been lost. How about taking some of the detail out and putting it into Actions of the Irish War of Independence, which could be structured as chronology of events in the war? One or two other things need fixing here too. First of all the figure for RIC deaths is far too low, it was about 3 times that number. Second, there is no mention of the North, where sectarian violence killed at least as many people as guerrilla warfare in the south. If no one objects to these points, I'm going to start re-organising this article along htese lines hsortly. Jdorney 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - though I'd call the daughter article Chronology of the Irish War of Independence. Does this mean that you will do an RTM from the current dippy title? Or are you going to start from Strongbow? :-) --Red King 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, seems like a lot of hassle changing the name, I know what you mean though. I have to do a bit of research and then I'll have a go at this article. Jdorney 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created the Chronology article here and moved some of the info contained on this page. However I still feel that this article needs a complete overhaul, with the emphasis on themes rather than many small events. Jdorney 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Added images

Images providing details on attacks, and atrocities. Fluffy999 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

British Army

Do we really need the warbox to say that there was 30,000 british soldiers?Since the british army didnt play much of a role in the war its misleading Dermo69

That's not true, they did, especially after November 1920. Its a missconception that the Black and Tans were the main British force, borne out by the republican description of the conflict as the "Tan War". If fact during the bloodiest phase of the conflict the British army was the main oponent facing the IRA. Jdorney 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah but 30,000?I find it hard to believe that the IRA brought 30,000 experienced,professional soldiers plus the police and the Black and tans to a stalemate.Are you sure it's as high as 30,0000?Dermo69

Yes, its difficult to find the exact number though. According to Michael Hopkinson's "The Irish War of Independence", (page 51), there were about 50,000 British soldiers stationed in Ireland after WWI in 1918, but most of them were just garrisoned there and waiting to be demobilised or moved elsewhere. By November 1919 there were 37,529 British soldiers in Ireland, but they didn't begin to take part in combatting the IRA until January 1920, by which time there was less than 25,000. They seem to have remained at this level (over 20,000) for the remainder of the conflict, although their role in the fighting increased dramatically after the imposition of martial law in November 1920. Apparently the British high command were reluctant to put more troops into the country. British officers Hugh Elles and John Anderson argued that what they needed was more "extreme measures" in the most violent parts of the country, not more troops dispersed all over Ireland, "If you pour in more troops on the present lines, you are simply throwing good money after bad". (Hopkinson page 96).

Many of the troops in Ireland seem to have been raw recruits rather than WWI veterans. Sir John Anderson again, "the rank and file are quite raw and for the immediate purpose of giving support to the civil authority in the ordinary task of maintaining law and order throughout the country, almost useless". (p53). The IRA didn't really bring them to a standstill anyway. If anything it was the other way around, the IRA were very short of weapons, ammunition and experienced fighters by the time of the truce. The problem for the British govenment was that the war could drag on and on without a settlement, it was costing lots of money and was very unpopular at home.

Jdorney 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok then i wont change it. Dermo69

War in the North

I've written up the section of the war in the north east as I had intended for several months. I am now wondering if it needs to have its own article however. Two reasons: one, the length - basically it is too long. Secondly, the chronology is different from the war in the rest of the country, roughly summer 1920 -summer 1922. Even the causlties seem to have been counted seperately from the rest of the country. Any thoughts anyone?

Jdorney 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

what about the declaration of war?

Something by some expert about the differing levels of declaration is needed. There was the Declaration of independence in Jan 1919 asking the 'British garrison' to go home; a sort of declaration of war. The shooting war started soon after at Soloheadbeag. Only in June 1920 did the volunteers swear their support for the Dail. In March 1921 came the formal declaration of war by the Dail, not long before the Truce. In Jan 1919, World War I was still technically unfinished. An armistice had been signed but Germany was blockaded &c. until the Versailles Treaty was signed off in the summer of 1919. All this (untidiness?) had an impact on foreign recognition of the 1919 Republic and on the Irish Civil War. Some thought 'British garrison' included men in uniform, others that it meant all civilians who had a past link to the British system.Wikiman 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Black and Tans or Auxillaries?

The same picture is used throughout Wikipedia. Sometimes the three men within it are called "Black and Tans" (RIC Reserve Force), sometimes "Auxillaries" (Auxillary Division). They've got to be either one or the other. Could whoever uploaded the picture please find out for sure who exactly they are. If it's vague, then surely readers should be informed that it may be a photo of both forces. If it can be found out, then at last an annoying inconsistency will be gone forever.

Hang on a minute, I wasn't paying full attention! Yeah, the naming's fine. I just wasn't thinking straight when I wrote the above paragraph. Sorry for getting in the way.

French version

There's no French version of this article yet. You should create the Guerre Anglo-Irlandaise stub, you'll probably find support there :). Shame On You 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

be bold you obviously speak french

This paragraph is confusing

" policy of ostracism of RIC men was announced by the Dáil in April 1919." FIRST of all, one should not use RIC when it has not been introduced in the article yet. I have no idea what it stands for, but reading along I got the idea it is the British force. Then, "Often they were reduced to buying food at gunpoint as shops and other businesses refused to deal with them." the RIC was at gunpoint? or were the buisness owners at gunpoint? This wording is confusing. --Iopq 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. The problem here is that I have shifted around some text recently for the purposes of clarity. I will ammend the text accordingly. Re the specific points, the RIC stands for Royal Irish Constabulary, the British police force in Ireland. The RIC, because they were ostracised, sometimes had to intimidate shop owners into serving them.

Jdorney 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrible

It pains me to say it, having contributed to it quite a lot myself, but this article is truly terrible. It has masses of information, some of it more relevant than others, but no coherence, no clear narrative that expalains events to someone coming to it for the first time. I would suggest that it was much better from this point of view way back in June 2005 [1], although it had plenty of deficiencies at that time too. What the article really needs is someone to look at it from the outside and then ruthlessly edit it down to a more managable, more coherent and more easily understood article.

Jdorney 12:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that, having just read the current version, I think this article is pretty good--balanced and informative, with a clear narrative. It's probably much more detailed than other articles on other, comparable conflicts, but that simply reflects a high level of popular interest and intensive historical research. The Irish War of Independence is almost certainly one of the most thoroughly-researched small wars in Western history.

--Cliodule 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cliodule, sometimes when you contribute to an article yourself you tend to lose your objectivity a bit. I still think its too long though. Jdorney 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

How can the Irish State be a combatant when it did not exist? This was a civil war or rebellion not a war between nation states. --MJB 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia to list declared nations (in this case, the 'Irish Republic' of 1916-1922) as combatants in wars for independence. Take a look at the article on the American Revolution for another example; the United States is listed as a combatant. Preceding comment at 19:07, 3 August 2007 by 128.243.220.42

Agreed. The 'Irish Republic' was the revolutionary counter-state. To argue that it was not a combatant is equivalent to arguing, say, that the 'Republic of Biafra' was not a combatant in the Nigerian Civil War. Rebellions and civil wars are struggles for power and authority between incumbent states and insurgent counter-states: if the insurgents win, their counter-state becomes the state; if they lose, it becomes--well, nothing. In this case, the Irish Republic became nothing--but only after its supporters lost the subsequent Civil War.--Cliodule 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that it changes the correct answer by the anon editor, but Cliodule's interpretation is partisan. Formally, the war ended in the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The Irish Republic did not achieve all its war aims, but then neither did the United Kingdom. The Irish Republic became the Irish Free State when Dáil Éireann ratified the Treaty. Only in Provo mythology (and the English tabloids) does the Irish Republic still exist. --Red King 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think my answer was partisan, then you need to read it again, because you clearly didn't understand it the first time. I did not say that the Irish Republic still exists, and I agree that its continuing existence is a Provo myth, as you say. What I said was that the Irish Republic became nothing--i.e. ceased to exist--after its supporters lost the subsequent Civil War--i.e. the Irish Civil War of 1922-23.

The Republic was not 'transformed' into the Irish Free State: the Irish Free State replaced the Republic. In the words of the article on the Free State: "The Irish Free State came into being on December 6, 1922, replacing two nominally co-existing but parallel states: the de jure Southern Ireland...; and the de facto Irish Republic...." (emphasis added) One faction of the Republican movement accepted the replacement of the Republic by the Free State. Another faction did not. That's what the Civil War was about.

Ultimately, the Republicans lost the Civil War, and the Irish Republic ceased to exist even in fact, let alone in law. But so long as the Republicans were in the field, fighting to overturn the Treaty settlement, we must grant the Irish Republic the same status as it held when they were fighting the British. To claim that the Irish Republic existed during the War of Independence, but not during the Civil War, is inconsistent--and such inconsistencies are the true mark of partisan thinking. So I suggest you get the beam out of your own eye before you start complaining about the mote in mine.--Cliodule 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your point is well argued, so I withdraw the "partisan" allegation. But I would still say that the Irish Republic ceased to exist when its elected representatives in Dáil Éireann said it did. What gives the orders of Dev/Aitken, Cathal Goulding or Gerry Adams any validity? result - Ó Brádaigh is right in his assertions. Reductio ad absurdum. --Red King 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling errors in direct quotes

I've come across a few spelling errors in direct quotes. I was wondering if anyone could check them against the original texts?

In Craig tacitly approved of "organised respisals" on nationalists... I assume it should be "reprisals".

In ...the guerrilla warfare, "was often couragous and effective" (Hopkinson, Irish War of Independence p204), "courageous" is the correct spelling.

I'm just a little leery of changing a direct quote without being sure of the source material. I'm 99% sure these are just typos but you never know... Pig^man 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not have that source to hand, so I cannot check those quotes myself. I do tend to think that you are probably correct, Pigman, but we need to check it. Let me look into this and see what I can find. Thanks for pointing that out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to the exact place in the article where you found these misspellings? The one quote I found from Craig talking about reprisals was spellt correctly. The Hopkinson book is available on Google books, and I am checking references there. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, both are now fixed, as is the Hopkinson reference. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what was this war all about after all?

After reading this article I still don't know what moved the Irish to start a war. What were the economic causes/reasons? Any circumstances other than political ones? Thanks! Rokus01 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the History of Ireland in general. The Great Irish Famine and Irish nationalism are particulalry relevant. If you just want the short version, see the last paragraph of Digital History: The Irish Potato Famine. --Red King (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I expected to find this information here in this article, though all I can read is an account of what happened. Rokus01 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, britain was occupying ireland and still is partly, the irish were fighting for freedom, same reason the american revolution happened.--86.169.15.175 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

References and balance

I've added a number of tags to the article requesting references for much of the content. While I find the article informative, it is sorely lacking in proper sourcing. Also, I'm by no means an expert on this topic (which is one of the reasons I read the article), but it seems to me that there is a decided bias toward the Irish side of things. Are there any knowledgeable, objective historians lurking out there who'd be willing to add a little balance? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can have a go at the sources. Re the balance, can you pinpoint what you have in mind? Jdorney (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SanFran: I'm afraid the only people who can write balanced articles about Irish history are the British. After all, who would you trust to write a balanced history of the past five years in Iraq: some savage native with a chip on his shoulder or some peaceloving, utterly disinterested member of the metropolis that has bravely taken on the burden of occupying Iraq in order to help the poor backward natives? Hopefully some day those Irish will realise the glories of British rule, desist from this freedom nonsense and take a balanced view of the boot that has been on their neck since the Battle of Kinsale. 86.42.84.131 (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanfranman, it does need more balance but the sources are thin. As in all such conflicts they had to justify it after the event. Consider that -

• 1. All the senior officials in Ireland appointed by London since 1910 knew that some form of home rule or independence would occur on their watch.
• 2. Ireland was costing London £millions every year, so exploitative colonialism was no longer a factor.
• 3. The British had the bad manners to want to sort out the first world war aftermath in 1919, instead of granting Irish freedom immediately on the kaiser's abdication.
• 4. The 1918 election was a great success for Sinn Fein, but its manifesto said nothing about starting a war within a few weeks.
• 5. The IRA were told at the July 1921 Truce that they had won the war, when in fact there was an unpleasant stalemate, in hopes that a political compromise could be reached. When it was reached, most of them demanded a rematch as there was nothing in it for them. The rematch was with their former colleagues...
• 6. The First and Second Dails made no serious attempt to try to persuade even 10% of the northern loyalists to support the Irish Republic, so a million richer and better-educated (but touchier) potential citizens were alienated before 1920. Any form of violence would raise their fears going back to 1641, if anyone was interested in them - it seems not. They had nothing to contribute except the industrial part of the country that might pay a few bills; couldn't even speak Irish most of them.
• 7. The economy tanked in early 1920 until 1922, causing great hardship to ordinary people (remember them?). Yet the Dail passed decrees branding anyone who wanted to emigrate as a "deserter".
• 8. The war started by the volunteers in January 1919 was such a success that "a state of war" was acknowledged (but not declared) as early as in March 1921, less than 4 months from the end.
• 9. While the war was to bring freedom, the southern economy's exports and currency remained tied to Britain until 1969-79. 500,000 people emigrated in the 1950s, a whole generation after the war was "won" to, er, stop emigration.
• 10. Internally the Irish language was to be reintroduced to diminish freedom, allowing censorship by controlling the presses. Didn't quite work out that way.
• 11. Luckily for the IRA the Black and Tans behaved so badly from mid-1920 that a PR victory was handed to them on a plate, thanks mainly to Desmond Fitzgerald. The Dail Court system was also a great success in PR terms, but contributed nothing to the war.

So the historiography has been based on memoirs of local actions, and these are still being argued over and analysed. But nobody has dared explore the bigger questions - "could it have been done better?"; "What if it had been negotiated more slowly, over 50 years, and saved 10,000 lives?" That would be OR on wikipedia. Professorships in history can only be given by Irish universities that are all funded by the State, so there's nothing in it for academic historians.

The war is still portrayed by some as a war of liberation from the British, when in fact it was a war of imprisonment for most of us Irish people for the next 50 years or so. The awful communal violence in Belfast from 1920, and all that has flowed from it, was entirely due to those who started the war.86.42.226.149 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just slightly POV there mr 86.42.226.149, no?

In any case WP is there to document what was and not what might have been. Jdorney (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just slightly... A military solution to a problem was considered more manly then, and we have the problem today of weighing things up with our views of normality. It surprises me that after the 1914-18 war and an apparent clear-cut result there were conflicts in Egypt, India, Hitler in 1923, Mussolini, the Russian civil war, the Greek invasion and Chanak crisis in Turkey and so on. Arthur Griffith suggested a non-lethal campaign of civil disobedience, with strikes and sabotage, but it never went to a vote.Red Hurley (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

haha Mr 66.42.226.149...let me guess you are a Protestant from Ulster...But I will take the time to respond to one of your "points". "*2. Ireland was costing London £millions every year, so exploitative colonialism was no longer a factor." Ireland was paying taxes, as well as being a main food source for England (as well as supplying cannon fodder). In fact, a study done by the British Labour party in the early 1900s found that Ireland was being overtaxed significantly in comparison to the rest of the UK due to disparate tax policies in place. Essentially, the Irish were paying more than their share to get a government that usually offered nothing more than various Coercion acts whenever times were tough (as they were often due to misgovernment). Of course during this conflict most had stopped paying taxes and the military effort was costing a fortune, but this was only for a small period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.204.47 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blacktans.jpg

The image Image:Blacktans.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation in 1922

I've added a short section with source on the lengthy British army evacuation from the south, which most will agree was the object of the war.86.42.219.131 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox - belligerents?

The infobox states that the Republic of Ireland was a belligerent, but surely the whole point was that the RofI was not formed until after the war. Any objections if I change it to the (Old) Irish Republican Army? Hadrian89 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It does not state the Republic of Ireland was a belligerent, it states the Irish Republic was a belligerent. Despite the continued common use of "Irish Republic" to describe the South, Irish Republic is quite specific. O Fenian (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise - I was previously ignorant of the difference between the two. Thanks for pointing it out. Hadrian89 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Due to the ongoing modern use of "Irish Republic" to describe the current Irish state, it is a mistake easily made. O Fenian (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1918 Manifesto

A recent comment includes the following:

"The 1918 election was a great success for Sinn Féin, but its manifesto said nothing about starting a war within a few weeks." (Item 4 of 86.42.226.149 above)

On this point the article itself says:

"Initial Hostilities:

… it was not clear in the beginning of 1919 that the Dáil ever intended to gain independence by military means, and war was not threatened in Sinn Féin's 1918 manifesto … "

But Sinn Féin’s 1918 election manifesto states the following as an Aim:

"By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise." Sinn_Féin_Manifesto_1918.

In any reasonable reading, this states that the independence movement was prepared to resist military repression by any means necessary.

It was hardly necessary to include this explicit Aim. Because if the independence movement had declared itself to be pacifist and prepared to submit to military repression of their electoral mandate, nobody in their right mind would have believed them. Most of the candidates were veterans of the 1916 Rising released from internment, and many of them experienced further imprisonment. Their character, outlook and purpose were perfectly obvious. It was just a question of timing - at what point would resistance commence against military repression.

John Redmond himself declared many times that it was perfectly legitimate to seek independence by military means (with or without the kind of electoral mandate achieved in 1918), except that he believed that these methods did not have the slightest chance of success against the world’s superpower, a superpower which had no record of voluntarily giving up conquered territory.

Surely the wording of the article should be changed to reflect Aim No. 2 of the Sinn_Féin_Manifesto_1918?

For instance, "Sinn Féin’s 1918 Election Manifesto declared that any and every means available would be used to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.130.52 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with that, a clear and reasoned rational. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. In the sentence "the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise", it is unclear whether "military force or otherwise" refers to how England hold Ireland in subjection, or those would be the means used by Ireland. As it is open to interpretation either way, a secondary source which interprets the primary source should be cited. O Fenian (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion O Fenian, and would copper fasten the inclusion of the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the intentions of the Dáil should not be predicted based on the Sinn Féin manifesto, as the two are not necessarily the same. Secondary sources should be used, not the hypothesis of a discredited revisionist historian based on an election manifesto. O Fenian (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore history has just been re-written with one edit based on this unsourced conjecture. The previous version was correct, in that it was unknown whether the Dáil were going to declare war but events at Soloheadbeg kick-started the war. O Fenian (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have a go a referencing this, could editors tell me exactly what they would be looking for in the secondary source? For example, Liz Curtis, in The Cause of Ireland:From the United Irishmen to Partition, page 303 says "While the Irish parliamentary party still stood for dominion home rule, Sinn Féin declared that it aimed to secure the establishment of the Irish republic, 1.By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland. 2.By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise."

Would this clarify the information? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do see what you mean now O Fenian, even with the Curtis ref its still not clear. On reading it over, it would seem to me they are talking about England who are holding Ireland by military force. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

War was not explicitly threatened in the manifesto, ie it does not contain words such as "if you do not withdraw from Ireland we will declare war". Yes there is rhetoric, but equally there is rhetoric in William Craig's comments of "if the politicians fail, it will be our duty to liquidate the enemy". Editors should not deduce the motives of people based on rhetoric, especially as the rhetoric is contained in the manifesto and events on the ground may have changed the intentions of the Dáil in the interim. What is not known is if the Dáil intended to declare war or not, but that their hand was forced due to the events at Soloheadbeg. If that quote from the manifesto is placed in that section of the article, it implies that war was already decided, and the Dáil's hand was forced earlier than planned when this is not known. Maybe war was a last resort for the Dáil after all other means (such as diplomatic ones) had failed? O Fenian (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with O Fenian here. The manifesto does not threaten war and moreover, the Dail did not declare war until the spring of 1921 in response to the situation the escalating conflict had created. The Dail did not take responsibility for the IRA's actions until this time, a fact that alone show teh ambiguities of its position. Jdorney (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The article reads "...it was not clear in the beginning of 1919 that the Dáil ever intended to gain independence by military means, and war was not explicitly threatened in Sinn Féin's 1918 manifesto...". The logic of the arguments above indicates that this phrasing should be changed, for the same reason that the phrasing proposed by me was challenged. Or at least the phrase should be removed until the criteria of those arguments are met by some alternative, replacement phrase.

[In real world terms, the main point of difference between the independence movement and the Redmondite movement was, not that independence was not legitimate, nor that the use of military methods to achieve it was not legitimate; but that Redmondism held that such military methods were useless, pointless and therefore wrong because they could not possibly succeed against the kind of force that could and would be deployed against them ( - force that Redmondism had become heavily implicated in during the preceding four years). The 1918 Sinn Féin party would not go so far as this, and its position was more subtle, nuanced and realistic (and ultimately more successful) in the actual circumstances of the time. Its manifesto, on which the First Dáil was formed, expresses this. The potential for war on the independence issue originated, not in the elected government but in the competing, unelected one. The present phrasing in the article puts the responsibility for war on the independence movement, when the responsibility really lies with the unelected power.] Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The difference between Sinn Fein and the IPP was that Sinn Fein stood on a platform of complete independence, wheareas Redmond stood for the implementation of Home Rule - which was a limited form of self government in the British Empire. Sinn Fein's policy was to form a 'counter-state' and declare the Irish Republic in being. But not, at least initially, to start a war. To say otherwise is to gloss over the complexity of the period. Elements within Sinn Fein (essentially the IRB) wanted armed struggle, but they were only gradually endorsed by the Dail.

And it's not about apportioning blame one way or the other. 'Who started it' is not a productive debate for the article to have. Jdorney (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Initial Hostilities"

Sorry for not attending to this discussion, no offence intended.

The first paragraph of the Initial Hostilities section currently reads as follows: While it was not clear in the beginning of 1919 that the Dáil ever intended to gain independence by military means, and war was not explicitly threatened in Sinn Féin's 1918 manifesto, an incident on 19 January 1919 sparked off the armed conflict. Several IRA members acting independently at Soloheadbeg, in County Tipperary, led by Seán Treacy and Dan Breen, attacked and shot two Royal Irish Constabulary officers who were escorting explosives.

The thrust of this paragraph is that the independence movement unilaterally initiated use of military force, perhaps even an undeclared “war”, in order to achieve its political objectives. I think this is inadequate, and the paragraph should be amended.

The argument against amending this paragraph is (1) the relevant statement in the Sinn Féin election manifesto is allegedly ambiguous, and (2) apportioning “blame” is unproductive. But if (1) is correct, then the paragraph is wrong in pointing the reader towards a particular implication, and should be amended. If we accept (2), then the paragraph is “unproductive” and should be amended.

Nothing in the discussion to date refutes the need to amend this paragraph.

Going back to the actual events, in 1919 there were some precedents for one country separating from another, and the various means by which this might be achieved. In 1821, Greece rebelled against Turkey and won independence militarily in 1829. After a series of military rebellions, Serbia won independence from Turkey during the 19th century. (When Serbia subsequently conquered Kosovo, Kosovo Day was celebrated as a congratulatory national holiday in Britain for a number of years.)

Hungary rebelled militarily against the Austrian Empire in 1848-9. The rebellion was defeated with the assistance of Russia (the “gendarme of Europe”), and Hungary remained in enforced subjection. After a period of passive resistance, Hungary obtained autonomy in 1867, but remained part of the Empire. The reformed Empire became the precursor of the present European Union in the sense of being for the most part a voluntary organisation of European peoples in a customs union.

In 1905 Norway voted to separate from Sweden, and Sweden made the necessary constitutional arrangements for Norwegian independence.

So in 1919 there were encouraging democratic precedents for peaceful separation, such as Norway.

(We can also look to post-1919 instances. A number of territories (such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia – remember them?) which had not asked for statehood were granted it by Britain, France and the USA. In contrast, though Poland had fought on the side of the defeated Central Powers it too was given independence. This was because it was hostile to both the new and old enemies – the Soviet Union and Germany. Territories such as Iraq and Lebanon were converted into states, in order that they could be more easily controlled and exploited. India was a territory consisting of many different peoples, kingdoms, languages, histories and religions which, under British rule, formed a single entity constituted essentially by Britain’s Indian Army. When this vast Army of Indians could no longer be relied upon to hold India down, Britain had to leave.)

The previous discussion includes the following statement: “Elements within Sinn Fein (essentially the IRB) wanted armed struggle”. What Sinn Féin and the IRB wanted was independence. This was also what was decided in the 1918 elections, when the voters gave Sinn Féin a democratic mandate – an instruction, in other words – to implement independence by “any and every means available”, as stated in Sinn Féin’s election manifesto.

Only a fool would “want armed struggle” – to risk death, and cause death, for something which was attainable by voting and negotiation or by some other non-violent means. The issue was whether the democratic mandate could be implemented by voting and negotiation, or whether the occupying power would push the matter to a contest involving violence.

That issue was a matter for the occupying power to decide. The decision for armed conflict in 1919 lay with the British government.

In 1919 this was an old and familiar issue, not a new one. The nineteenth century was dominated by it. O’Connell sought to implement a popular demand for constitutional change by means of pacifist mass meetings. This policy collapsed when the government brought out the army to prevent a mass meeting in Clontarf in 1843.

Would the army really have fired on O’Connell’s pacifist gathering if he had gone ahead? It fired on such gatherings in 1919 (Amritsar) and 1972 (Derry), and numerous other occasions. The Young Ireland element in O’Connell’s movement rejected pacifism. It had been demonstrated that pacifism meant unconditional surrender to the occupying power no matter what that power did. As a failed policy it made no sense to adhere to it dogmatically. (Unconditional acceptance of the regime could be considered, but it was not a sustainable policy.)

The Redmondite movement was not pacifist. It committed Ireland to the most extreme violence of the twentieth century.

The sedition laws meant that, where separation was concerned, compulsion (i.e. force, including armed force) was the core of the Irish relationship to the British government – imprisonment of politicians, suppression of newspapers, banning political groups, breaking up meetings, and so on. In that sense, armed violence by and on behalf of the government was the permanent condition of Ireland. Naturally there was occasional violent resistance to this. Passing over the Ulster Unionist armed revolt against the British government, the first military action of the period which culminated in the “War” of Independence was the shooting dead of three unarmed civilians by government forces in 1914 (Bachelor’s Walk) and the wounding of 23 other unarmed civilians. When armed independence activists occupied buildings in April 1916 and distributed leaflets declaring Ireland to be an independent Republic, neither they nor the British government whose forces attacked them had an electoral mandate. The mandate of the representatives elected in 1910 expired in 1915 but the government and other representatives (including the Redmondites) continued in office without a mandate until 1918. (The British government did not receive an electoral mandate in Ireland; it did not seek one.)

The Irish forces surrendered after a few days’ resistance, but intermittent violence continued over the following years, including armed clashes in 1917-18, until it escalated considerably in late 1920.

In December 1918, one side received an electoral mandate. At this point, the legitimacy of the authority exercised by the independence movement was established electorally. If legitimate authority does not come from the ballot-box, then where does it come from? Again, just as in the previous elections, the British government did not even seek a democratic mandate to govern Ireland, even though its Great War propaganda said that it stood for democracy and self-determination for small nations.

The British government described the actions of its armed forces in Ireland as police action against criminals. It did not declare a war. Looked at realistically, it did not fight a war. When the Boers rebelled a few years earlier, Britain fought the action as a war. The Boers – a colonial people themselves – were much better equipped than the Irish to resist, but were defeated nonetheless. In the early 1940’s both Britain and the USA made calculations of the military resources that would be needed to invade and conquer the Free State, which was better equipped militarily and politically to resist such an attack than the Irish forces of 1919-21 who were opposing an established occupation force. Though Britain and the USA came up with different numbers of invading forces, there can be no doubt that either of them could have conquered the Free State fairly quickly.

The independence movement of 1919-21 did not win a war against Britain. There wasn’t a war, though one or two of the military actions came close. They won a political contest. The term “War of Independence” is a metaphor for this contest. The armed aspects of the contest were a more acute expression of the endemic violence of the occupation regime which had never acquired legitimacy by electoral or any other means.

That is why the “Initial Hostilities” paragraph seems to me to be unrealistic.

Here’s another way of looking at it. A battered wife wants to get away from a violent, abusive, quarrelsome husband who has a string of other battered wives around the place. The husband threatens to kill her if she even thinks about getting a divorce, and on several occasions, beat her to within an inch of her life when she tried to run away.

She has two brothers who want to help her. One of them advises her to plead with her husband to treat her better, but on no account to resist when he raises a fist to her. She tries this, to no avail. The final straw was when he persuaded the wife to join her husband in a violent quarrel with the neighbours, in return for a promise that she could run the kitchen, do the shopping, and go out to bingo occasionally.

The other brother tells her not to stand for it, not to be a punch-bag, to defend herself to the best of her ability, and to run away to a shelter. He also advised her to talk to a divorce solicitor (the Versailles Conference). Unfortunately the husband turns out to be a partner in the firm of solicitors!

What the first paragraph of this section of the article implies is that the wife initiated violence against the husband. Pat Muldowney (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pat, we're not concerned with the philosophical implications here such as, "is violence legitimate?", "what is democracy?", "what is a war?". Doubtless these points are worthy of debate, but not in this article.

It's certainly true that the War of Independence was not a conventional military contest, but it was an armed conflict. The years 1919-1922 saw about 2,000 people killed in political violence in Ireland. This level of violence did not exist before 1919 and did not exist after 1923. (Lets include the civil war for the sake of convenience). So it is entirely appropriate for the article to explain how such violence began.

Regarding how it began. We can discuss the legitimacy or otherwise or violence and democracy but it's really not the point here. How did it start? The Easter Rising, ok, (I think you're description of it is a little euphemistic however!) but we have another article on that. In the years 1919 there were a few deaths due to political violence, state and otherwise in Ireland but no armed campaign against the state. This began in 1919. Soloheadbeg was not the only incident but was the first when Volunteers killed RIC men.

Furthermore, while Sinn Fein had not ruled out armed struggle in 1918, they had not "ruled it in" either. And while the electorate who voted for them must have realised that it was a possibility, the Dail of 1919 did NOT meet on the basis of launching a revolutionary war. I repeat, events were such that it did not endorse the campaign until spring 1921. The people who launched the campaign were, essentially, the IRB influenced Volunteers. And yes, they did want an armed struggle, because, I assume, they didn't think they would get Irish independence any other way.

So which of these points in the article would you like to change?

RegardsJdorney (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From discussion above:

"'Who started it' is not a productive debate for the article to have. "

and

"It is entirely appropriate for the article to explain how such violence began. "

But the question of ‘How it started’ can’t be entirely separated from ‘Who started it’.

On April 18, 1918 the Redmondite Irish Party, having withdrawn from the House of Commons over the passing of a Military Service Act, joined with other Irish parties to issue a declaration from the Mansion House, Dublin: "The passing of the Conscription Bill by the British House of Commons must be regarded as a declaration of war on the Irish nation... It is in direct violation of the rights of small nationalities to self-determination which even the prime minister of England — now preparing to employ naked militarism and force his act upon Ireland — himself officially announced as an essential condition for peace at the (Paris) peace conference". Among those who signed the declaration were John Dillon and Joseph Devlin (representing the Irish Party), Eamon de Valera and Arthur Griffith (representing Sinn Féin), William O'Brien (All-for-Ireland League), Tim Healy (Independent) and, representing Labour, Thomas Johnson, William O'Brien and M Egan.

Again in 1921, the Dáil also acknowledged what it called a state of war.

On the British side, some notable stages can be identified in the development of its ‘war’ on Ireland, following the all-Party Irish declaration above:

Firstly, on May 10, 1918 Lord French was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as a military viceroy at the head of a military government. (Lord French had led the British Army in the early stages of the Great War. He belonged to a prominent aristocratic Loyalist family in Ireland (though his sister became a socialist, feminist Sinn Féin supporter). Lord French, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had brought Britain to the brink of civil war by spearheading an Army Mutiny against the British Government which put an Irish Home Bill on the Statute Book, causing the Bill to be aborted. The political forces allied to the Army Mutiny dominated the British Government from 1915 onwards.)

Secondly, French took steps to send an extra 12,000 troops to Ireland (25,000 were already there) and planned to establish four "entrenched air camps" which could be used to bomb Sinn Féiners.

Thirdly, following a proclamation by Lord French on May 16, 1918 in relation to an alleged German plot (a German offensive in March almost overwhelmed the British Army), more than 100 members of Sinn Féin were imprisoned without trial under the Defence of the Realm Act.

A British army of occupation was enforcing military rule in Ireland in this period.

In January 1919 there were several notable events: (1) The First Dáil met in the Mansion House and ‘unilaterally’ declared itself the government of Ireland on the basis of its democratic mandate, as against the unelected power which had ‘unilaterally’ assumed the authority of government in Ireland, on the basis of armed force. (2) The latter power invoked armed action against the elected government by sending a force of about 200 soldiers, with armoured cars and machine guns, against the Mansion House parliament. (The small number of elected representatives who were able (despite the military repression) to be in attendance evaded this force.) (3) Two policemen were shot by Irish Volunteers in Soloheadbeg.

In terms of violent conflict there was nothing special about January 1919:

Tom Ashe was killed in 1917 while engaged in a form of Gandhian passive resistance in jail. (If he could have obtained a gun to defend himself, no doubt he'd have used it.)

Many were killed and wounded by British military action prior to January 1919. In Co. Cork, the figures given by Peter Hart’s The IRA and its Enemies are approximately 20 (1917) and 20 (1918) compared with about 50 in 1919 and about 50 in the first half of 1920. These were mostly civilians and Volunteers. Thereafter the numbers of casualties spiked to many hundreds, and included many on the British side.

Instances of armed retaliation, as distinct from civil resistance, occurred in 1918 and 1917, as well as 1919. For instance, in February 1918 Drimoleague RIC station was bombed. In July 1918 a man was shot by Volunteers in an arms raid in Silvermines. In July 1918 a policeman was shot in Ballyvourney. In November 1918 an RIC man was shot by a colleague who thought he was shooting a Volunteer.

Even though Britain never officially declared war on Ireland, the employment of military violence against the independence movement began long before the Soloheadbeg incident. Likewise, though the resistance to these measures was largely non-military to begin with, armed resistance also began long before Soloheadbeg. From December 1918 until the formal suspension of the conflict, one side of the conflict had a democratic mandate. This record of events is asserted in, e.g., the Memoirs of Senator Joseph Connolly, ed. J. Anthony Gaughan, IAP, 1995.

‘War’ was undeclared on both sides, both of whom employed ‘any and every means available’, in the words of the Sinn Féin election manifesto. (That is, any means other than outright war, of which only one side was capable.) There is no evidence that the political and governmental work of Dáil Éireann could have been sustained without the employment of ‘any and every means available’.

The Wikipedia article needs to be amended to reflect these facts of ‘how such violence began’.

In particular the following assertions in the article need to be changed:

The war had its origins in the formation of an independent Irish parliament ... An incident on 19 January 1919 sparked off the armed conflict ... The British cabinet had not sought the war that had developed since 1919

As soon as I can manage it, I propose to amend the article accordingly, and insert some mention of the key facts of the British military actions which resulted in conflict, including armed conflict, in the period 1917-21 (relatively more intense in 1920-21, with the portion of the conflict from First Dáil to Truce being called, by convention, the War of Independence). Pat Muldowney (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What you have written above contradicts academically accepted information regarding the War and how it began, for example Richard English "Irish Freedom" says "..the fatal attack of January 1919 in which the IRA killed two RIC men in County Tipperary (and which is usually held to have inaugurated the conflict)". I request any proposed changes to this article are discussed first, before any revisionisim to suit any particular agenda takes place. O Fenian (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard English's view is not "academically accepted" (BTW, there is no such thing). See Brendan O’Leary (University of Pennsylvania), 'Cuttlefish, cholesterol and Saoirse', Field Day Review, 3 (2007), pp. 187–203. See also in the Institute of Historical Research (IHR), Reviews in History, John Regan (University of Dundee) on 'Irish Freedom', at http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/regan2resp.html. At some point Mr Muldowney will have to be allowed to put in his well researched material. Otherwise this would appear to be endless discussion for the purpose of obfuscation and delay. Nomath (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing there or in the correct link that contradicts the academically accepted starting date of 1919. Mr Muldowney can publish his well researched material on his blog, it is not going in this article. O Fenian (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"The ambush at Soloheadbeg in County Tipperary on 21 January 1919 is usually cited as the opening engagement of the Anglo-Irish war." Portrait of a Revolutionary by Maryann Gialanella Valiulis (ISBN 978-0813117911)

"The Soloheadbeg ambush of 21 January 1919 is generally accepted as the beginning of the armed conflict." The Irish War of Independence by Michael Hopkinson (ISBN 978-0773528406)

"The shootings at Soloheadbeg, in Tipperary in 1919, generally held to mark the start of the war of independence" A Military History of Ireland by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (ISBN 978-0521629898)

"There had been sporadic violence in 1917 and 1918, but the first military action of the war is generally taken to be the attack on RIC personnel at Soloheadbeg, County Tipperary" Imagining Ireland's Independence: The Debates Over the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 by Jason Knirck (ISBN 978-0742541481)

"The killing of two RIC members at Soloheadbeg in January 1919 signified the commencement of the Anglo-Irish War" The Life of Sir Denis Henry: Catholic Unionist by A.D. McDonnell (ISBN 978-0901905949)

"the ambush and killing of two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) at Soloheadbeg were the first shots in the Anglo- Irish War" Fortress Church: The English Roman Catholic Bishops and Politics 1903-1963 by Kester Aspden (ISBN 978-0852442036)

"The Anglo-Irish War began with the murder of two Irish police officers at Soloheadbeg in January 1919" Britain and Ireland, 1867-1922 by Martin Collier (ISBN 978-0435308278)

Do you want a few score more as well? O Fenian (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I' wondering why this debate has got so confrontational. I don't see a big problem in acknowledging that Soloheadbeg is generally seen as the start of the armed conflict and also recognising that there was a certain amount of political violence and state represson in 1917 and 18 as well?Jdorney (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems somewhat elementary. Nomath (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Pat Muldowney is an "amateur historian" intent on revising accepted history. His comment of "and insert some mention of the key facts of the British military actions which resulted in conflict, including armed conflict, in the period 1917-21" suggests that he will be using this article (as he has another, according to his editing history) to promote his own theories using self published sources or his own research. Who says the "British military actions" resulted in conflict? Only Pat Muldowney at present it seems. The selective inclusion of events designed to make the reader draw conclusions that proper historians of the period have not made is revisionism. O Fenian (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But what about a short sentence or two saying that there was some political violence in Ireland between 1916 and 1919? Should keep everyone happy?Jdorney (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be some mention, just that it should be done briefly and neutrally. O Fenian (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are due to these comments above;

• In particular the following assertions in the article need to be changed:
• The war had its origins in the formation of an independent Irish parliament ... An incident on 19 January 1919 sparked off the armed conflict ... The British cabinet had not sought the war that had developed since 1919

If he believes that "An incident on 19 January 1919 sparked off the armed conflict" should be changed to anything other than something like "An incident on 19 January 1919 is generally seen as the start of the armed conflict" then I have grave concerns. O Fenian (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The First World war started when someone fired the first shot. That seems to be O Fenian's equivalent position with regard to the Irish War of Independence. That or 'Dan Breen lit the touch paper and it all went Boom!' It is accepted that the Solehedbeg ambush and convening of the Dail on the same day were largely coincidental. Of perhaps more significance was the fact that only 23 or so of the 75 Sinn Fein TDs elected were in the Mansion House. Where were the rest? Mostly in a British jail or on the run from British arrest. Arresting the majority of a county's representatives is regarded as an act of war in its own right in most situations. The seeds of violent conflict were there and in the violent actions and preparations taken by the British to suppress the Dail, which they later in 1919 declared an illegal assembly. The British government might have wished to politically suppress but they expected to violently suppress an assembly whose first act was to validate the 1916 uprising. Theirs was political violence of an existing state, whereas that of the Dail forces was of an emerging state. The war would not have started in ernest if Britain allowed the Dail to function, to take over the administration of the areas under its popular control unmolested. It did not and that made the war happen, not the events in Solehedbeg, which were a reflection of the state of conflict which was emerging, and a preparation for that conflict. The object was to secure explosives. It is fine to sate that the first shots were fired there, but the article needs to reflect the complexity of the situation, not a simplistic throw away sentence. The article or paragraph or sentence needs to reflect these facts as aspects of the violent conflict which began what we call the Irish War of Independence. I agree with Muldowney's general argument. Would O Fenian be happy with "The war had its origins in the British government's suppression of of an independent Irish parliament attended by three quarters of its elected representatives." and "An attempt by Irish Volunteers to secure explosives on same day as the Dail met, which resulted in the shooting of its armed RUC guard in Solehedbeg Co Tipperary, occurred on 19 January 1919. This event witnessed the the first Irish shots in the emerging violent conflict between Ireland and Britain, that came to be known as the Irish War of Independence." ?? Nomath (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that World War I did indeed begin with two shots, those that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Just as reliable sources in their dozens state that the Irish War of Independence began with the shootings at Soloheadbeg.

As has happened elsewhere, we will now be bogged down with conclusions being drawn about historical events, conclusions being drawn about speeches, and obscure sources such as the memoirs of a senator being used in preference to the many, many sources that cover the Irish War of Independence and its causes.

Wikipedia is not the place for you, Pat Muldowney and the "Aubane Historical Society" to rewrite history to suit your own agenda. If you want to change academic opinion, go away and change it first then come back here after. O Fenian (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And neither is it the place for you to descend into gratuitous insult (BTW, I am not the object of your apparent Ire, Mr Muldowney). Now, to the substance of your point. The shooting of the Archduke and the subsequent diplomatic disagreement did indeed lead to a declaration of war by those who became belligerents. Afterwards the first shots in WW1 were fired. Would you like us to deal with Solehedbeg in this manner? Your formulation is inadequate on its own. It needs more, that is all. It is not enough to suggest that there was a war because two RIC men were shot in Tipperary. If you wish to put them in the position of the Archduke in Sarajevo, we might be getting somewhere. If you could let down your preconceptions as to the motives of others for a second, I am sure we can proceed. Nomath (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"you, Pat Muldowney and the "Aubane Historical Society"" refers to two people and a society. I have no interest in engaging in discussion of this nature, only in ensuring that the article reflects what reliable sources have said and that no revisionist additions are made which go against academic consensus. O Fenian (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that my suggestion does, apart from calling the RIC the RUC (oops). Also, you can take a sentence out of context from a book of hundreds of pages on the topic of the WoI. We have merely one web-page and have to condense meaning into very many less sentences. Your Archduke and Solehedbeg points are junior schoolboy/girl history. Is that the standard Wikipedia sets. It may be difficult, but could we return to the discussion now, please? Since you have not said that my sentences violate your personal standards, I take it they can be inserted. What does Muldowney say? Nomath (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could just say that the "Aubane Historical Society" is anti-revisionist in my opinion. Thats just based on the books I've read. Revisionist have got or had got academic consensus, the likes of Foster, R. D. Edwards and the late great C. C. O'Brien etc, and supported by their cheerleaders like Harris and Myers. Aubane have done a lot to challange them, and in my opinion are doing a first class job. After weeks of waiting I finally got a copy of Aubane versus Oxford, a good read. I just got a copy today of the last letter by Liam Mellows (to his mother) which was only discovered three weeks ago, if I used that it would not have academic consensus? LOL --Domer48_'fenian' 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

In the light of the discussion above I propose the following rewording of the section Initial Hostilities, including correction of the phrase "On the same day ..." in third paragraph.

In the section Initial Hostilities, replace the first three paragraphs with the following:

"The British government responded to the growing independence movement by attempting to suppress it by means of police and military measures, resulting in increased tension, armed clashes and casualties on both sides. In the elections held on 14 December 1918 the Sinn Féin party achieved a majority of Irish representatives on a mandate of achieving independence by "any and every means available". On 19 January 1919 Irish Volunteers in Soloheadbeg Co Tipperary secured explosives by shooting the armed RIC guard. This event is usually taken to mark the beginning of the phase of the conflict known as the Irish War of Independence. On 21 January 1921 Dáil Éireann convened for the first time, ratified the 1916 proclamation of an independent Irish Republic, issued a new Declaration of Independence, and in a "Message to the Free Nations of the World" declared that "the existing state of war between Ireland and England can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated by the armed forces of England". The British authorities in Ireland declared martial law in South Tipperary on 22 January 1921."

Insert the following clause at the start of the next (fourth) paragraph:

"A state of war between the two countries was thus acknowledged, but ... "

Citations:

For the first sentence practically any reference book will do; I propose Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies because, aside from arrests, beatings, suppression of newspapers etc etc, it includes useful sample figures on casualties, and refers to baton and bayonet charges.

For the second sentence, Michael Laffan's The Resurrection of Ireland could be used.

For the third and fourth sentences, any of the books mentioned in the recent Discussion. Pat Muldowney (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hart’s is a very bad choice of book, his sources have been comprehensively challenged and shown to contain major omissions, distortions and blatant lies, such as interviewing dead people. Laffan, is useful, but alternative views are needed as a counter weight. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse Peter Hart of any such thing. Anyone who has ever read his doctoral thesis is aware how talented and methodical this author is. He has come in for some criticism, but so have many authors who have challenged conventional theses. NewIreland2009 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an accusation that can be backed up by verifiable and reliable sources. As you say all authors attract criticism the difference being that Hart can speak to dead people now that is talented and methodical. BigDunc^Talk 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you link to reliable sources and verifiablity? We get it. Please provide a source for your assertion. The charge that he has interviewed people who are supposedly dead is quite serious indeed, and as far as I'm concerned its nothing more than mere speculation coming from Meda Ryan (Though I don't believe he is entirely innocent). I take it you've read his doctoral thesis in detail? NewIreland2009 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Ryan, please read Brian P Murphy osb and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. This book covers his doctoral thesis in detail, and illustrates clearly that he interviewed dead people. In addition to the above named authors, who can also add John Borgonovo. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See link and link. As there is an independent source confirming the date of Ned Young's death being before the alleged interview, it looks like Mr Hart has slipped up. I will post a response to Mr Muldowney's highly dubious suggestion later. O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know Murphy came out against it. Fair enough by the look of it then. 86.40.207.62 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Manus O'Riordan, Jack Lane and Dr Andreas Boldt have all come out against it. Hart's rant in History Ireland did not help his cause either. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Mr Muldowney's suggestion. Firstly the use of "mandate" is inherently problematic. Secondly why are you selectively quoting the manifesto to suggest that any such "mandate" for such activity existed? Thirdly why are you selectively quoting the "Message to the Free Nations of the World" to suggest a state of war existed and also suggesting removing that Dáil Éireann had not declared war and did not do so until 1921? Revisionist history at its finest! O Fenian (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"On Tuesday 21 January 1919, between 12.30 p.m. and 1 p.m., two RIC constables were ambushed by eight Volunteers under the command of Seán Treacy, near Soloheadbeg Quarry, close to the homes of Treacy and Dan Breen." - page 51, "Dan Breen and the IRA", by Joe Ambrose, Mercier Press, 2006; also other sources. That puts Soloheadbeg on the same day as first meeting of the Dáil, contrary to the date in my comment above which came from another Wikipedia article. Pat Muldowney (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are four objections to the proposed re-wording:

1. First, use of the word “mandate”.

Election candidates publish their policy proposals in a manifesto. If they are successful in the elections, their policy proposals acquire a mandate. I suppose some other word(s) could be used regarding the electoral endorsement of the Sinn Féin policy proposals, but they would amount to the same thing.

2. Second, objection to the quotation from the manifesto http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sinn_Féin_Manifesto_1918

The manifesto put four substantive proposals to the electorate for their approval. The second proposal is the one which is relevant to the “Initial Hostilities” section: “By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.” While the phrase “use of any and every means available” captures the sense of the manifesto, the whole sentence could be included if this is felt to be preferable to any selection of words from the sentence.

3. Third, Quote from “Message to the Free Nations of the World”.

In section entitled “Initial Hostilities”, the issue is the presence or absence of a state of war. The British government, which was the stronger of the belligerents, claimed that what was going on in Ireland was a crime wave, not war. The Irish political parties stated on 18 April 1918 that Britain had declared war on Ireland. On various subsequent occasions the Irish government declared that a state of war existed. The first occasion was 21 January 1919 in http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210013.html (“Message to the Free Nations of the World”) which refers to an existing state of war. The same declaration was made on 11 March 1921. The latter is sometimes called a “declaration of war”, but it is similar to the previous declarations – acknowledgement that there was a state of war in the country. That is what the Dáil record states. There seems to have been some political advantage, as Truce was being talked about, that Ireland should possess the formal, international status of a belligerent whilst seeking terms for the suspension of the conflict and for entering into negotiations on an international settlement of the issues between Ireland and Britain. (The kind of negotiations which the 1918 elections should have precipitated.) There was a desire to give the Irish Consuls abroad some legal and political leverage in obtaining international support. International “declaration of war” could counter the “local criminality” viewpoint. On the other hand, a formal Irish declaration of war against Britain could weaken the position of Ireland’s supporters in Britain.

The President of the Dáil reflected philosophically on the issue of a formal declaration of war in Dáil proceedings, 25 January 1921: “The question was whether it was feasible for them to accept formally a state of war that was being thrust on them, or not. The balance was pretty even. If they declared war just now it might give the impression of a small boy asking a six-footer to come out and fight, and his position would be regarded as ridiculous. But if, on the other hand, the small boy was being kicked about and defending himself to the best of his ability, then he would have public opinion supporting him. Taking the situation as a whole, he did not think it advisable to take that step at present. The sense of that meeting was that the policy he suggested was too weak, an endorsement of the policy of the past rather than a criticism to modify in any way the actions of the past. Members who did not agree with the policy should ask themselves what was the alternative. If they were to cease Volunteer activities could they carry on peacefully? They could not. Could they carry on constructive work? They could not. The enemy would force them out of pacifism by brutality. The only thing was they should not over-tax their strength. So far from being a vote of censure upon the Ministry, the sense of the meeting was a complete endorsement of their action.” http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192103110031.html "His opinion was they should agree to the acceptance of a state of war." [The views of the President, above, were widespread. According to Laffan (Resurrection of Ireland, p. 274): “Even former politicians whose lives had centred on Westminster came to accept the efficacy of violence. T.M. Healy wrote of the British that ‘nothing but the threat or use of force will move them to do anything’, while John Dillon later asked himself ‘can there be any doubt that if murder and guerrilla war ceased in Ireland the Irish Question would within a few weeks be laid on the shelf and forgotten?’ ”. ]

4. Finally, if “acknowledgement or acceptance of a state of war” is the same as “declaration of war”, then the Dáil declared war on 21 January 1919 in its “Message to the Free Nations”. If “acceptance of a state of war” is NOT the same as “declaration of war”, then, like the British government, the Dáil did NOT declare a war against the other side, since what was declared by the Dáil on 11 March 1921 was, like before, “acceptance of a state of war”.

In addition to the re-wording already proposed, the simplest and least prejudicial way for the article to get around the issue of “acceptance/acknowledgement of war” versus “declaration of war” is to remove the first and last sentences of the final paragraph of the “Initial Hostilities” section. The remaining sentences of the final paragraph are clear and accurate summary of the official records of the Dáil.

The discussion on this page has been useful in motivating a closer scrutiny of the record of the Dáil. Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More agenda driven revisionism.

That you think Sinn Féin obtained a mandate is not relevant, this is disputed by sources. For example Northern Ireland: Conflict and Change (ISBN 978-0582424005) says "It is a moot point whether the 1918 elections should be interpreted as a decisive mandate for a unitary independent state. . . It is difficult to perceive the vote as an endorsement for Sinn Féin's agenda for a new Ireland as this had scarcely been formulated". So in other words whether they had a mandate or not is open to interpretation, and we can see what your interpretation is. Sinn Féin did not have a majority mandate. Or how about Ireland, 1798-1998: Politics and War (ISBN 978-0631195429) "The party was not formally in favour of violent revolution, and in 1918 it did not seek any popular mandate for a military overthrow of British rule". How about that, a reliable source that contradicts Mr Muldowney's opinion about mandates and Sinn Féin's intentions?

Who says that what was written in the election manifesto is relevant to that section? You are still attempting to draw a correlation between what was written in the manifesto and the war beginning, without having sources to cite. If your argument is correct, you should have no problem citing a source that makes the same arguments you do, or ideally more than one to show your argument is a well established one.

Would you like to actually answer the question instead of waffling? Why are you attempting to re-write history to make it look like the Dáil declared war in 1919 when this did not happen, and did not happen until 1921?

All I see is lots of your own opinion and interpretation of events. Maybe such things are acceptable when writing for such lofty heights of intellect such as "indymedia", but this is an encyclopedia not a psuedo-blog. Here we write what sources have said about events. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Breen and Treacy thought they were starting a war, and planned to do so - see Breen's quote. That was regardless of the 1918 manifesto and any violence in 1917-18.Red Hurley (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not in dispute, although I do not know why Mr Muldowney proposes to remove that quote. The problem is Mr Muldowney's theories about the intentions/actions/inactions of the Dáil which are being hypothesised based on interpretations of quotes and other documents. O Fenian (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Mr Muldowney knows much more about it all than poor old Dan Breen;-)Red Hurley (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, how much of a state of war could the new Republic really have been in, when it also tried for months to gain a seat at the 1919 Peace conference, at which Britain was a major player? There was a major disconnect between the early actions of the IRA and the first meetings of the Dáil. The growing IRA only swore allegiance to the Dáil in August 1920. As we know, most of the Dáil and most of the IRA were divided again by the Treaty, and the disconnect continued until 1923. It became convenient to provide a democratic basis for the war, but the democrats themselves kept quiet until 1921.Red Hurley (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Compensation section added

A quick note on the IFS compensation undertakings in 1923 and 1925, with citations. All our best stories end with compo, don't they?Red Hurley (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Initial Hostilities"

The present wording of the article says that Treacy & Breen “sparked off the armed conflict”, and quotes Breen saying “we wanted to start a war”. The impression is given that this was the cause of the War of Independence. This is like saying that the first fatal shot fired from the trenches was the cause of the Great War. Ignoring the main political players (the British government in Ireland, and the elected government) is like ignoring the Kaiser, the Czar and the King of England and their war ministries, diplomats and governments in causing the Great War; and ignoring the issues of territorial and other interests and ambitions which brought these states into armed conflict.

The Sinn Féin manifesto did not explicitly threaten war, as the article said. But it did not explicitly rule it out either, and what reason is there to suppose that “any and every means” means anything other than what it says on the tin? As an ingredient in the conflict which was brewing, this part of the manifesto should be quoted in the article, regardless of whether or not it is to be regarded as part of the “mandate” of the elected government. Otherwise the impression given in the article, that Breen and Treacy conjured up a war out of the blue, is left uncorrected. No doubt Breen and Treacy, as soldiers, might have liked people to believe that they, and they alone, struck the crucial first blow which led to Irish freedom. And no doubt others would like to single them out as people who indulged in a spot of gratuitous killing which caused an unnecessary war which otherwise might not have happened, and which led on to a cycle of political violence down to the present. But in my opinion each of these conflicting representations imposes too heavy a burden of significance on these words of Dan Breen.

It makes little sense for the article to quote the reminiscences of a veteran, but not quote the relevant part of the election manifesto of people who led both the government and the army. This is trivialising the article. It’s like quoting a soldier on the Western Front, while ignoring the preliminary policy statements of the governments of England, Germany, Russia etc.

Further to this part of the manifesto, it is likely that the voters knew what they were doing when they refused to support candidates who proposed to continue to use the Westminster processes to try to resolve the issues between Ireland and Britain, and instead supported very well-known candidates who endorsed the 1916 Rising in which many of them participated, who had spent time in jail for it, who had emerged not remorseful but stronger and more assured; candidates who proposed to take the issues away from the Westminster forum and into the international Paris Peace Talks if possible; but in the full knowledge that it would be difficult to get the British government to agree to this or to any other such negotiations, especially in view of the ongoing repression which on 18 April 1918 was publicly characterised by leaders of all the Irish parties as a “declaration of war on Ireland”.

The British government did not offer negotiation to the Irish government when it was elected. In view of that, what incentive did the British government have to offer negotiations in Paris or anywhere else, if there was no resistance on the ground to the British forces of occupation?

The Dáil transcripts show the relationship between the military/political leaders who were members of the Dáil and those Volunteers who were not. As and when the British government offered negotiations, the appropriate signals from the leadership went out to the Volunteers. This is illustrated in the Clune episode of December 1920, and of course in the actual Truce when it arrived.

As to the question of an Irish “declaration of war on Britain” (or against the British occupation forces in Ireland), again the best thing to do in the article is simply to quote the actual words used by the Dáil from 1919 to 1921. As far as I know there is no dispute that these are the actual words used. In fact the article has them already, and all that’s needed is removal of a couple of inaccurate or questionable opinions/interpretations, in the first and last sentences of the final paragraph.

I am not trying to “make it look like” the Dáil declared war in 1919. I am proposing that the article stick strictly to the actual words used by the Dáil.

The Dáil transcripts make a difference between “declaring war”, and “accepting [the fact of] an existing state of war”. At various times the Dáil asserted the latter words or their equivalent. It debated the former words but never asserted them, for reasons stated in the Dáil transcripts; reasons which are consistent with the manifesto and consistent with the Dáil's relationship with the Volunteers.

I don’t think the Dáil EVER “declared war”, not in 1919, not in 1921. But I don’t propose that this opinion should be included in this part of the article, nor any other opinion or argument; just documented, verifiable words and facts.

P.S. Re compensation: Is there any intention to write up the arrangements for war-damage compensation payments made by the British government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add your disputed version while discussion is taking place. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have still not provided any sources that support your opinions, nor attempted to justify your selective quoting of sources to provide conclusions that sources do not appear to have, Please do so before editing further. O Fenian (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

While doing some more work on the article I have found more sources that make your version unacceptable. Foy's "Michael Collins Intelligence War" says "However, in early 1919 this belief was confined to a small minority, because most republicans, let alone the population as a whole, neither desired nor expected a conflict. But manipulating a reluctant nation into war without a democratic mandate hardly troubled Collins...." Or how about Geraghty's "The Irish War"? Referring to the 21 January meeting of the Dáil "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'. This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom". Your selective inclusion of certain quotes from historical documents provides a distorted, revised version of history that is not supported by sources that have written about the period, which I can only assume if why you have failed to produce any sources. O Fenian (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no sources. O Fenian (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pat, a couple of points...

• You said: "The British government did not offer negotiation to the Irish government when it was elected. In view of that, what incentive did the British government have to offer negotiations in Paris or anywhere else, if there was no resistance on the ground to the British forces of occupation?"

A fair point, but the peace negotiations were an international matter, supposedly a settling of self-determination disputes such as the Irish one. The diplomatic correspondence is online at the Royal Irish Academy website. Nothing had been done by the volunteers by mid-1919 to bring Britain to its knees, it was just a matter of being invited or not.

• No-one disputes that there was escalating protest and violence in 1917-19 that has since been underplayed, but it is mentioned in the article and rightly so. But subsequently all involved dated it from 21 Jan 1919 (even in the wretched compensation arrangements). Breen's comment is therefore very important, even if you think he was wrong.
• There is nothing "wrong" with running an undeclared war, but the Dáil comments on that naturally belong in an encyclopedic article. I'll put them back, but if anyone wants to vote on that I don't mind. You can't remove material with citations without a discussion.
• The causes of any war always predate the start of hostilities, and are well covered at the start of the article.Red Hurley (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of IRA Volunteers executed

The number cannot be correct surely? I attempted to add a brief mention of The Forgotten Ten, and ran into this sentence;

• On 1 February, the first execution under martial law of an IRA man took place. Cornelius Murphy of Millstreet, Cork was shot in Cork city. On 28 February, six more were executed, again in Cork. In all, 14 IRA volunteers were officially executed in the course of the war.

If 7 were executed in Cork, and 10 in Dublin that makes 17, and that assumes none were executed elsewhere? I have amended to 17 for now, but this does need to be looked at. Were the Forgotten Ten not "official" executions? O Fenian (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the number in Hopkinson, but it looks like it's too low alright. Jdorney (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found this which says 26 men were executed. I would not normally like to use AP instead of someone like Hopkinson, but on this occasion when Hopkinson's figure is obviously wrong I think we should, at least until a better source is available? O Fenian (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a better source that says 24 so I went with that, and added some details about Kevin Barry too who I thought needed to be mentioned in the article. With Hopkinson being out by 10, it seems as though he may have forgotten about the Forgotten Ten.... O Fenian (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, actually I think APRN is pretty reliable when it comes to recording republican casualites over the years. I've used them as a source in number of wp articles. Hopkinson is generally pretty reliable but he does make mistakes in figures from time to time. Jdorney (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This does with 24 as well. I think the problem with the 26 figure is that it might include McKee and Clancy as it's from a republican perspective. O Fenian (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at the number of Republicans who were shot "while trying to escape from lawful custody" that was the case with McKee, Clancy and Clune. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A correct number of executions would be impossible. By execution I mean the killing of a combatant in custody, after a skirmish or battle had ceased. The only number that could be found with anything close to certainty is the number officially executed by Crown forces (which I believe is usually reported as 14). Many, after capture, were taken to a nearby wall, put up against it and shot dead. They were listed as KIA by Crown reports, or often "shot while trying to escape" as noted above. The picture is muddled even more when you think of cases like MacCurtain, who was shot in his bed by a masked gang of RIC men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.204.47 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Initial Hostilities"

O Fenian's sources (above) consist merely of opinions. Take his Foy for example:

"However, in early 1919 this belief was confined to a small minority, because most republicans, let alone the population as a whole, neither desired nor expected a conflict. But manipulating a reluctant nation into war without a democratic mandate hardly troubled Collins...."

That is a source of contemporary opinion about a historical event - what are the evidential sources for Foy's opinion, or did he suck it out of his thumb?. As stated it does not make sense, since Collins had a democratic mandate in 1919 - at least as much as Austin Chamberlain had in 1939, reacting to the Nazi invasion of a third country, Poland. Muldowney has given us the contemporary source. That seems to me to be preferable. Nomath (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious. To have a mandate you certainly need a majority of the vote, which Collins did not have. But that never mattered to Collins, just as it didn't matter to Pearse and the others who died in the Easter Rising, they didn't need a mandate to wage war against England. Collins and others may have thought they had a mandate, but they didn't according to reliable sources. Pat Muldowney may have given his amateur opinion of history, but the professionals disagree. As for Foy's sources, there are four pages of them listed in the back of his book, which is four pages more than Pat Muldowney has provided even though I have asked several times. O Fenian (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your reliable sources suggesting that SF did not have a democratic mandate. Please also explain your opinion that SF did not have majority backing. Please also explain your view of the historical significance of British violence, censorship, interment and deportations at this period and the role of the Viceroy as the military leader of a quasi military government since the middle of 1918. Please also integrate into your answer a view of the significance of the local government elections of 1920, after 18 months of republican and British hostilities. In his The Four Glorious Years (1953) Frank Gallagher refers to "a perfectly-timed defiance" on August 15th 1918, when, At one hour throughout the whole land the local Sinn Fein Cumann [branches] held a public meeting. There were nearly 2,000 cumann... Each meeting was timed to last fifteen minutes, and as soon as word of it came to the local British headquarters and troops and police had men assembled to disperse it, the meeting was over". In other words political activity was banned, subject to disruption by the quasi-military government. This included the election period prior to the 1918 general election (when all males over 21 and all females over 30 had the vote for the first time). This did not change after Sinn Fein won an overwhelming mandate (don't you agree O Fenian) in December 1918. In fact, if anything the harassment got worse. This indicates that the British government could not cope with Irish democracy without resort to violent and undemocratic methods. This was one (important, don’t you think O Fenian) factor that made war inevitable. Could you please factor into your professional mindset, factors such as these when coming to an opinion. Please take your time before replying. Thank you. Nomath (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, my apologies but one more question, what size mandate did the British government win in Ireland in 1918, percentage support, number of seats won, etc? Nomath (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop filling this talk page with your own personal opinions, they are completely irrelevant to the content of this article and this discussion. For sources that Sinn Féin did not have a mandate, please try reading the discussion first. Or if you are still having trouble, try Northern Ireland: Conflict and Change (ISBN 978-0582424005) says "It is a moot point whether the 1918 elections should be interpreted as a decisive mandate for a unitary independent state. . . It is difficult to perceive the vote as an endorsement for Sinn Féin's agenda for a new Ireland as this had scarcely been formulated" or Foy's "Michael Collins Intelligence War" says "However, in early 1919 this belief was confined to a small minority, because most republicans, let alone the population as a whole, neither desired nor expected a conflict. But manipulating a reluctant nation into war without a democratic mandate hardly troubled Collins....". As for the electorate voting for war, try Geraghty's "The Irish War"? Referring to the 21 January meeting of the Dáil "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'. This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom". It is not an opinion that Sinn Féin did not have majority backing, is it a cast iron fact that you seem to be having trouble with, namely that they received 47% of the vote. 47% is a minority. O Fenian (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is now clear, you don't know what you are talking about. Either that or you have no problem intruding an infantile debater's point into this discussion. This is a personal opinion, but, I am prepared to back it up with facts. Sinn Fein won 73 of the 105 Irish seats in 1918. The old debater's trick of saying they accomplished this feat with 47% of the vote leaves out the salient and important fact that 25 of the seats were won uncontested. No votes were cast in those constituencies because the opposition was too feeble to stand. All objective observers state that Sinn Fein support in those constituencies must be close to or greater than the 80% plus support won in a large number of the contested seats. Conservatively, Sinn Fein support was at 60% or above in Ireland in December 1918. In the 1920 local government elections, after 18 months of war, the Sinn Fein mandate was even bigger. All the "moot points" in the world wither in the face of facts like these, the ones you are not prepared to face or that you attempt to hide from the discussion.

I don't believe that you have answered any of my questions, apart from in a manner that indicates either historical ineptitude or charlatanism. Is there another explanation, do tell. Nomath (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this has no relevance to the content of the article. Your views are not going in it, only ones which have been published by reliable sources. If you have sources please provide them, otherwise please go to indymedia or a forum as this page is not for debate. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not put any view in, but please tell me what right you have to decide whether other peoples’ view goes in or not? I have merely suggested that Muldowney's have more historical validity that yours (that are approximately 47% accurate). Nomath (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, read it and learn it. I have provided reliable sources to back up my points, something you and Muldowney do not seem capable of. Perhaps because no professional historians share your views? O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a difficulty with people who assume unaccountable expertise on their own behalf. Perhaps you might tell us the names of the "professional historians" who informed you that Sinn Fein had 47% support in 1918. It might be educational - we could learn to avoid them. Nomath (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that most revisionists would avoid people who state facts such as Sinn Féin receiving 47% of the vote in 1918, as facts do get in the way of revisionism. O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I am very happy for others to judge the nature of the disagreement, simply on the basis of the point put forward above by O Fenian (who seems to think himself some kind on non-revisionst - of the 47% variety perhaps). Nomath (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian has deleted (censored) the info below - I indicate the link for evaluation. He construes it as an attack. There is evidence that O Fenian is monopolising this page. The evidence is on http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_War_of_Independence&oldid=268136298

In summary:

1. (cur) (prev) 19:52, 2 February 2009 O Fenian (Talk | contribs) (73,131 bytes) (Undid revision 268089097 by 217.42.130.140 (talk)) (undo)

2. (cur) (prev) 19:37, 2 February 2009 217.42.130.140 (Talk) (73,076 bytes) (→Independence and the Irish Civil War) (undo)

3. (cur) (prev) 19:01, 2 February 2009 O Fenian (Talk | contribs) (73,131 bytes) (→The propaganda war, Summer 1921) (undo)

……..

47. (cur) (prev) 01:05, 2 February 2009 O Fenian (Talk | contribs) (70,788 bytes) (→Initial hostilities) (undo)

48. (cur) (prev) 00:55, 2 February 2009 O Fenian (Talk | contribs) (70,492 bytes) (→The First Dáil: Sentence made no sense) (undo)

49. (cur) (prev) 00:18, 2 February 2009 O Fenian (Talk | contribs) (70,800 bytes) (Condense some Dáil information into the relevant section, remove

Of 49 edits on Feb 2 2009, 46 were by O Fenian. On this page he sticks rigidly to his pet theory and does not engage beyond claiming that others do not possess his brand of truth. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this?. Nomath (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia policies on what Pat Muldowney is doing, which is why his pet theories are not going in this article. O Fenian (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead

The lead currently states: The IRA that fought in this conflict under the First Dáil, the Irish parliament created in 1919 .... I suggest that this may require amendment, since the IRA initially operated independently of the First Dáil, and not "under" it. What do others think? Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest an alternate wording? The lead might be the wrong place to go into too much detail, but if something brief is suggested it might be ok? O Fenian (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about simply "The IRA that fought in this conflict ..."? Mooretwin (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change so that the sentence is a simple statement that the IRA during the IWI is sometimes called the Old IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin do you know were the term Old IRA originated? That it is sometimes called the Old IRA would you not have to say why and were the term Old IRA originated? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it's dubious to say they fought "under the Dail", when in fact they were independent of it for much of the conflict. I assume the term is used to distinguish it from later IRAs. Mooretwin (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They were on parallel lines, in terms of policy, and there was a department of defence, but in operational terms they were acting alone most of the time. Maybe "alongside" is better than "under".Red Hurley (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is if we are going to use the term Old IRA, we should know were it originated? Just to clarify though, it was not used to distinguish it from later IRAs.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote removed

• The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Hamar Greenwood, informed the Coalition Cabinet that "the administrative machinery of the courts has been brought to a standstill"

I have not been able to find a source for this quote while making other improvements to the article, and a source has been requested since January 2008. O Fenian (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First Dáil

I've added two relevant pieces of notable information:

• to note the dominance of SF outside Ulster, but its minority status in Ulster
• to note that the First Dáil consisted only of SF members.

Both these are relevant because

• the first one introduces the fact of Ulster being different to the rest of Ireland, which is relevant to the war. The experience of the war was completely different in Ulster and, ultimately, most of it was excluded from the resulting Free State.
• without this addition, it could appear that the First Dáil was a parliament of all Irish MPs elected in 1918.

Mooretwin (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is important, though the unionist MPs were invited to attend. Odd as it seems, if they had attended on the 21 Jan 1919 they would have had a majority.Red Hurley (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That's one to ponder! Mooretwin (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Undoing of PM's editing

I've reverted to the older version because Breen's quote is obviously an essential part of the record. Mr Muldowney, please register again; anyone in favour, or not, of how it is now, please add one line below this.Red Hurley (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not perfect now, but Muldowney's version is a grossly misleading version of events that selectively omits key facts to further a revisionist position. O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of PM's edits they are far from vandalism and should not be reverted as such. BigDunc^Talk 12:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not consider the removal of key, sourced facts to present a misleading version of history against consensus to be vandalism? O Fenian (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are removing key sourced facts from Muldowney. The problem it seems to me is that you have a problem dealing with British moves toward war. A war is fought between two sides. For political reasons the British 'Quasi military government' did not want to elevate the Irish belligerents into the status of state combatants. They preferred to present it as a law and order problem, hence Lloyd George’s reference to a ‘murder gang’, etc. The Irish side put an emphasis on a 'state of war' existing because of British war-like policy and action. Muldowney gave the background for Irish thinking on this matter. The section needs to be balanced in its presentation of the evidence. I may have ago later.

Nomath (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Muldowney does not have any sources, that is the point. He is also removing sources which disagree with his, frankly, warped view of history. O Fenian (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is self evidently not true to state that "Muldowney does not have any sources". Aside from a relevant section of the manifesto of Sinn Fein, on the basis of which SF were overwhelmingly elected, Muldowney cited and properly referenced statements made in Dáil Éireann (currently references 9-12). It is difficult to discuss with someone with such a basic disregard for evidence – it must make writing history difficult (or easy, depending on your point of view). You could attempt to cease insulting Muldowney. As I intimated, I will have a go later. Nomath (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A manifesto is not a source as such, especially when an amateur "historian" is using it to draw a conclusion that is contradicted by professional historians. If Muldowney's view is correct, he should have no trouble providing a source that agrees with him. I have asked many times for this, and given none have been provided it is safe to say Muldowney is wrong. O Fenian (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What I've included is the words of the relevant bit of the manifesto, no more and no less; no analysis, no interpretation. (If those words were not in the manifesto, then of course they shouldn’t be in the article. But if they were in it, I can see no justification for censoring them from the historical account.)

I think the Breen quote is of little weight in comparison with the relevant section of the official and public manifesto of the top military/political leadership of the independence movement, just at the moment when they were formally declaring their hand to the public in December 1918. But there may be some merit in keeping the Breen quote in the article, in that it may be an indicator of a realistic public scepticism that it would take much more than mere election success to get the British government to commence negotiations on the independence policy endorsed by the electorate. (That scepticism was amply vindicated in the imperial record in the later course of the twentieth century, not just in Ireland 1919-21.)

The other significant point in this section is the “declaration of war” issue. What the Dáil declared from 21 Jan 1919 through March 1921 was “acceptance of [an existing] state of war”, which it explicitly distinguished from “declaration of a war”. The article should simply adhere to the actual words used by the Dáil – no more, no less. Pat Muldowney (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No personal theories please, only ones that reliable sources have advanced. The inclusion of the Breen quote is supported by multiple sources, that confirm they were acting on their own initiative to try and start a war. The quote from the manifesto is misleading, as Geraghty explains. O Fenian (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Insults aside (and ignoring the fautous assertion, 'A manifesto is not a source as such'), O Fenian's only problem (Above Muldowney) is a source for a section of the Sinn Fein manifesto (polite people usually note 'citation needed'). The other sources are fine then. We are getting somewhere. Re O Fenian immediately above, there is no need to over egg the point. This may be pedantic, but Breen's comment is not supported` by "multiple sources" - it is supported simply by the fact that he wrote it in 'My Fight for Irish Freedom'. Journalist Tony Geraghty (author of Who Dares Wins, The Bullet Catchers) is perhaps what O Fenian might call an 'amateur historian' (though perhaps not in relation to people he agrees with). Geraghty's The Irish War "presents a highly opinionated look at the last 30 years of [the post 1968] Troubles" in Northern Ireland, according to one review. The final section is a "survey of 300 years of the relationship between Ireland and England in 100 pages". I think a more robust source would be preferable in the circumstances. Nomath (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What sources have you "two" provided? Absolutely none. If this continues I will see outside intervention, this article is not being re-written to suit a revisionist agenda. And if you honestly think multiple sources do not confirm Breen and the others acted on their out initiative outside IRA orders to do what they did, they you are ignorant of the subject. O Fenian (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein 1918 General Election Manifesto source: Dorothy Macardle's The Irish Republic, 1937, First American Edition, 1965, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, p. 263. Everybody happy (apart from noting that O Fenian misinterpets what I wrote about Breen - Breen writing it is source enough, already)? Nomath (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know what a secondary source is? Quotes from the books to support the proposed wording please? The manifesto is a primary source only, so no implied conclusions can be drawn from it. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The manifesto is a fact. Readers may or may not draw conclusions from the facts. The proposed version draws no conclusions.

As per earlier suggestion, inclusion of Breen quote:

"The British government responded to the growing independence movement by attempting to suppress it by means of police and military measures, resulting in increased tension, armed clashes and casualties on both sides. The manifesto of the Sinn Féin party, which won the elections held on 14 December 1918, stated: "Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of [an Irish] Republic … by making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.

"On 21 January 1919 Irish Volunteers in Soloheadbeg Co Tipperary secured explosives by shooting the armed RIC guard. This event is usually taken to mark the beginning of the phase of the conflict known as the Irish War of Independence. On 21 January 1921 Dáil Éireann convened for the first time, ratified the 1916 proclamation of an independent Irish Republic, issued a new Declaration of Independence, and in a "Message to the Free Nations of the World" declared that "the existing state of war between Ireland and England can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated by the armed forces of England". The British authorities in Ireland declared martial law in South Tipperary on 22 January 1921.

"An appeal to the Versailles Peace Conference, was a manifesto policy of Sinn Féin. But the British government did not agree to negotiate with the newly-elected Irish government until the Truce of 1921. Dan Breen, a participant in the Soloheadbeg action, later recalled: "... we took the action deliberately, having thought over the matter and talked it over between us. Treacy had stated to me that the only way of starting a war was to kill someone, and we wanted to start a war, so we intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces.... The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected....".

"On 10 April 1919 the Dáil was told: "As regards the Republican prisoners, we must always remember that this country is at war with England and so we must in a sense regard them as necessary casualties in the great fight." In January 1921, two years after the war had started, the Dáil debated "whether it was feasible to accept formally a state of war that was being thrust on them, or not", and decided not to declare war. Then on 11 March, Dáil Éireann President Éamon de Valera formally 'accepted' the existence of a 'state of war with England'." Pat Muldowney (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no sources...any further replies without them will result in me requesting outside intervention. And why are you proposing duplicate information be added to the article? O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting silly (the 'outside intervention' of Monty Python might be required). I have provided the Manifesto source above, and I assume that the references that did not come out in Muldowney's comment above (because it is the talk page) are the ones he provided originally (that, again) I referred to above. Perhaps Muldowney might clarify? Nomath (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Michael Laffan's book (Resurrection of Sinn Féin) also gives good detail on the Manifesto. (Of Soloheadbeg Laffan says: "The operation was on a small scale and it was bungled; the gelignite was taken, but the detonators were left behind. The killing of the policemen may have been unintentional, and may have been another sign of an operation which had gone wrong.”) When I can get a few spare minutes I'll write the sources out, again, for further perusal. Pat Muldowney (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The manifesto was aspirational, like all such documents. It didn't say: we are about to declare war within weeks or we are already at war. It didn't set a date by which the British had to leave, but it did say that they should leave. Therefore a link to the manifesto is enough, and essential. The volunteers were in place before it was written. Most of their supporters wanted to give Versailles a try first. The point about the Dáil's 1921 "acceptance of a state of war" is that they wanted it on the record, and wanted to show that they were responsible for the IRA before the war ended. It was not a clear cut thing, but enough is there to show that.

Also, when Laffan says: "The killing of the policemen may have been unintentional," he was wrong. You don't point guns at police escorting explosives without expecting to use them. To say otherwise is hopelessly naive. Breen's comment is therefore essential.

Also when the paperwork was sorted out, (but not much else!), everyone agreed that 21 Jan 1919 was the start date, not least because it coincided accidentally with the declaration of independence. I can see why Muldowney and others hold their views, and they are honestly held, but this is an encyclopedia not a PhD thesis.Red Hurley (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that most diplomats in 1919 would consider that a declaration of independence was a declaration of war, and that underlined 21 Jan 1919 as the start date.Red Hurley (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting opinions. Thanks for contributing them. Are you saying now that Laffan is out? Strange, but Breen said much the same thing in his 'My fight for Irish Freedom' (just checked it today). It is likely that Breen and his colleagues might have hoped that IRA arms and the element of controlled surprise were a deterrent to hostilities - after all if the RIC started firing they might shoot members of the IRA part. It is unlikely that Breen and his colleagues relished the prospect of being shot. The object of the exercise was to take the gelignite and the RIC arms. Anyway, this is all very interesting speculation. The point is, what do the historians say, of whom Laffan is one, and Breen himself of course. I am sure we will develop a coherent narrative out of this.

Also, the "declaration of independence was a declaration of war". So, Solehedbeg, that "coincided accidentally with the declaration of independence" is not necessarily decisive then. Interesting, you are suggesting, therefore, that the British Cabinet would have deduced the same? When did they declare war, by the way? After all, they decidedly fought one. Or, are you suggesting that that the Irish side started it simply with the declaration? What about the Irish side stating that they were accepting an already existing "state of war"? There are a number of factors to include, are there not, from the point of view of the two belligerent parties. However, the thought strikes me, the American Declaration of Independence took place on July 4 1776, some time after the initiation of armed hostilities. The Boston Tea Party was in 1773. On April 18 1775, the rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes took place, followed on April 19 by the Minutemen and redcoats clash at Lexington and Concord, "The shot heard round the world". Does your theory hold there? Is there an American Solehedbeg moment?

To summarise, we have a) what the Irish side said, b) what the Irish side did, c) what the British side said, d) what the British sided did. If we can wrap all that up in a neat paragraph we may be home and dry and wondering what all the fuss was about. Nomath (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes; re Breen quote, there is another statement by Breen which contradicts the one in the article: "We would have preferred to avoid bloodshed but they [the RIC men] were inflexible", Dan Breen, My Fight for Irish Freedom, 1924 (quoted in History Ireland, May 2007, p.56). Stick-up men point guns at bank-tellers, but the latter often survive to tell the tale – unless they are “inflexible”. If Breen & Co. really only wanted to “kill peelers” there were easier ways of doing this than going after a gelignite guard party. Perhaps this is the basis of Laffan’s reservations. Either way, for encyclopedia purposes we can’t cherry-pick from Breen’s contradictory statements on the matter.

In comparison with Breen’s contradictory statements, I think the “any & every means” statement by the military/political leadership in the Manifesto is the most weighty manifestation of policy that’s available to us. It would be a travesty not to quote it.

As to start date, I think everyone agrees on the conventional start date (21 Jan 1919) for this phase of the conflict.

Which is also the first occasion when the Dáil record acknowledges “the existing state of war, between Ireland and England, can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated by the armed forces of England” (Message to the Free Nations, DÉ, 21 Jan 1919, http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210013.html). This is a crucial official record for any encyclopaedic account of “Initial Hostilities”.

When Norway voted for independence, Sweden did not regard it as a “Declaration of War”. Instead it abided by Norway’s democratic decision and implemented it, in 1905. No doubt there were many in Ireland (perhaps Dan Breen was one of them) who would have agreed with Red Hurley’s remark above that “a declaration of independence was a declaration of war” (– as far as Britain was concerned), and who would have acted accordingly.

(As far as Britain was concerned, even a refusal to fight (for Britain) was a “declaration of war”. At least, that’s what’s implied in the all-Party (Redmondites, Sinn Féin, Labour, AFIL) statement of April 18 1918 (quoted on 21 January 2009 in the Discussion above). Also John Redmond’s declaration that "his National Volunteers [would be] trained in readiness for the day when they would have to fight [against Britain]" – Freeman’s Journal 7 Oct 1916, quoted in Laffan, ROSF, p.129.)

As to “aspirations” in the Manifesto, surely the aspirations were that (1) the voters would support the independence candidates; (2) that, if they did, the British Government would recognise this, in accordance with its Great War ideology/propaganda (and not regard such a vote as a “declaration of war” against Britain); (3) or, if it did not immediately accept the democratic decision, at least enter into negotiations with the elected Irish government at Versailles or elsewhere. Aspirations in this case are what you hope other people will do. Policy (non-participation in Westminster, ...any and every means, ...) is what you undertake to do yourself if mandated.

No doubt there were some on the Irish side who, like Red Hurley, regarded (2) and (3) as extremely aspirational indeed, and that they really were in a situation of any and every means. Were they wrong? Is Red Hurley wrong? The history of the twentieth century indicates they are not wrong. But a brief encyclopaedia article does not need to get into this aspect.

Proposed Revision of “Initial Hostilities”:

"The British government responded to the growing independence movement by attempting to suppress it by means of police and military measures, resulting in increased tension, armed clashes and casualties on both sides. The manifesto of the Sinn Féin party, which won the elections held on 14 December 1918, stated: "Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of [an Irish] Republic … by making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise."

"aims at", "to render impotent" - aspirational stuff. Nothing that isn't there already, or on the linked manifesto page.Red Hurley (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The second part of the quote was not even in the manifesto passed by Dublin Castle, see my comment below. O Fenian (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"On 21 January 1919 Irish Volunteers in Soloheadbeg Co Tipperary secured explosives by shooting the armed RIC guard. This event is usually taken to mark the beginning of the phase of the conflict known as the Irish War of Independence. On 21 January 1921 Dáil Éireann convened for the first time, ratified the 1916 proclamation of an independent Irish Republic, issued a new Declaration of Independence, and in a "Message to the Free Nations of the World" declared that "the existing state of war between Ireland and England can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated by the armed forces of England". The British authorities in Ireland declared martial law in South Tipperary on 22 January 1921.

"Message of the Free Nations" was again not a recognition of fact but an aspirational matter. It was ignored by the British. Martial law in one area is not a declaration of war in itself, just where law and order has broken down.Red Hurley (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"An appeal to the Versailles Peace Conference, was a manifesto policy of Sinn Féin. But the British government did not agree to negotiate with the newly-elected Irish government until the Truce of 1921.

The second sentence is wrong. Negotiation in late 1920 broke down and the January 1919 republic was many miles away from the unforeseeable Treaty situation in late 1921.Red Hurley (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"On 10 April 1919 the Dáil was told: "As regards the Republican prisoners, we must always remember that this country is at war with England and so we must in a sense regard them as necessary casualties in the great fight." In January 1921, two years after the war had started, the Dáil debated "whether it was feasible to accept formally a state of war that was being thrust on them, or not", and decided not to declare war. Then on 11 March, Dáil Éireann President Éamon de Valera formally 'accepted' the existence of a 'state of war with England'."

See below.Red Hurley (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Revision of “Initial Hostilities”:

First paragraph and first two sentences of second paragraph: Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Sinn Féin, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pages 129-155 , 266.

Third sentence of second paragraph: Proceedings of Dáil Éireann - Volume 1 - 21 January 1919 http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210013.html

Fourth sentence of second paragraph and two sentences of third paragraph: Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic, 1937, First American Edition, 1965, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, p. 274, 277-282.

First sentence of fourth paragraph: Proceedings of Dáil Éireann - Volume 1 - 10 April 1919 http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191904100004.html

Second sentence of fourth paragraph: Proceedings of Dáil Éireann - Volume 1 - 25 January 1921 http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192101250030.html

Final sentence: Proceedings of Dáil Éireann - Volume 1 - 11 March 1921 http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192103110061.html

That’s the proposed revision. Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(As to the Dan Breen quote ("... we took the action deliberately, having thought over the matter and talked it over between us. Treacy had stated to me that the only way of starting a war was to kill someone, and we wanted to start a war, so we intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces.... The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected....".,History Ireland, May 2007, p. 56) – if this quote is still insisted upon, then the contradicting Breen quote should be included: "We would have preferred to avoid bloodshed but they [the RIC men] were inflexible", Dan Breen, My Fight for Irish Freedom, 1924 (quoted in History Ireland, May 2007, p.56); followed by non-primary source on the contradiction: “The [Soloheadbeg] operation was on a small scale and it was bungled; the gelignite was taken, but the detonators were left behind. The killing of the policemen may have been unintentional, and may have been another sign of an operation which had gone wrong.” (Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Sinn Féin, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 266.) ) Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Laffan, The Resurrection of Sinn Féin" - should be "The Resurrection of Ireland". Pat Muldowney (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Supporting quotes from the books please. And I see you still haven't answered why you are proposing a duplicate section? Also why are you proposing ommiting key facts from other sources? O Fenian (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pat, the problem is that it was all a bit contradictory. The statement that Breen and Treacy planned Soloheadbeg is obviously important, tho' we don't have Treacy's version of events. The Dáil statement on 10 April 1919 was not official policy, but only Dr Ó hAodha's view of the situation. He spoke in a debate on this motion put by Arthur Griffith:

"The Executive proposes, with the sanction of the Dáil, to issue an authoritative statement of these cases and hand a copy of that statement to the representatives of all the civilised nations in Europe and the heads of the various churches, and also to take such steps as they may in connection with the treatment of our fellow countrymen in English prisons. While we are doing all possible for our countrymen in prison everything is subordinate to the supreme [62] and paramount task of pressing forward the claim of our nation to freedom. We must never lose sight of the fact that our first duty is the furtherance of the cause for which these men have gone to prison."

Nothing in that about declaring war, or whether the volunteers were in a state of war. The motion to "issue an authoritative statement" was carried. Ouch.

At the end of that same debate (10 April 1919) Cathal Brugha said: "Before I formally move the motion, as I have mentioned the name of Pierce McCann, I would ask the Members of the Dáil to stand up as a mark of our respect to the first man of our body to die for Ireland, and of our sympathy with his relatives." McCann had recently died, and nobody mentioned Thomas Ashe. Weird, it may seem, but there it is. That's who and what was on their minds at the time.

It is all reminiscent of the messy run-up to the civil war, when the official start was/is the shelling of the Four Courts in June 1922, but dozens of people had already been killed and both sides had even agreed to a truce in April-May 1922.Red Hurley (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Four reliable sources that show why the proposed version is not acceptable;

• "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4) says "It did not matter to the IRA that in the 1918 general election Sinn Féin had not campaigned for a mandate to use force in driving the British out of Ireland" (page 23)
• "Irish Freedom" by Richard English (ISBN 978-0-330-42759-3) says "What had people actually voted for? Not necessarily the republic sought by separatists (Sinn Féin had actually been rather ambiguous rather than doctrinally committed, on that point)" (page 283) and "It was not the case that IRA violence was legitimated through popular mandate (it simply was not)" (page 291)*
• "The Irish War" by Tony Geraghty (ISBN 978-0-00-638674-2) says "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'. This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom" (page 330)
• "Michael Collins' Intelligence War" by Michael T. Foy (ISBN 0-7509-4267-3) says "However, in early 1919 this belief was confined to a small minority, because most republicans, let alone the population as a whole, neither desired nor expected a conflict. But manipulating a reluctant nation into war without a democratic mandate hardly troubled Collins" (page 18)

This proposed version is a vastly distorted version of events, and is not acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking into this further, there is no possible way that quote from the manifesto should be included in that context. That particular quote was censored from the manifesto by Dublin Castle, so it was not in the published manifesto that the majority of the electorate saw. This, combined with what sources have said, makes the proposed version a distortion of history. O Fenian (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It can't go on the page so. If the legitimacy of the war was based on the 1918 election result, and the result was based on the published manifesto, then the unpublished parts can't be included.Red Hurley (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is the proposed additions to that particular section, which should remain about Soloheadbeg and events following it. The First Dáil is covered in the section above that, and if the elections need to be covered in any more detail they obviously need to be done in or before the First Dáil section. The sources agree that the IRA/Volunteers were acting with a degree (the degree is open to interpretation) of autonomy from the Dáil at the start of the war, and that Breen and Treacy were acting against GHQ orders. We cannot try and "marry" everything together in that section, as it is historically inaccurate. O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-wording

RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION:

Let’s suppose it’s 1922, and that after the IRA have been mopped up by an international peace-keeping force, the members of the First Dáil are on trial in the Hague for terrorist crimes committed in 1919-21. They deny everything, saying they had no control or influence on what happened; it was a bunch of autonomous, criminal, trigger-happy, psychopaths who started it all in Tipperary, and the Dáil had nothing to do with it.

But a sharp prosecution lawyer points out the obvious fact that the IRA strategists, Generals and Commanders were also the senior figures and Ministers in the Dáil “government”, as they laughably called themselves before they were all finally rounded up, - after the British authorities in Ireland, whose job it was to protect innocent civilians against revolutionary terrorist subversion, had failed in this elementary task.

The prosecution proceeds to bring in a damning piece of evidence – Exhibit No. 1: the Sinn Féin Election Manifesto, which states: “Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of [an Irish] Republic … by making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise. ” The prosecutor says that this is a clear incitement to violence against the authorities.

The defendants protest vigorously, saying, “But that never got into the newspapers! The Government censored it! ” The prosecutor responds:

“Aha! You admit that the original document was yours. You admit that that was what you REALLY tried to put in the papers! So that was your real purpose behind the deceitful “civilian” mask. The same inflammatory, seditious incitement to violence and rebellion that you preached at meetings up and down the country for weeks, when the Government Censor couldn’t stop you. And, to make matters worse, in order to trump the Censor and embarrass the authorities you went ahead anyway and published your so-called “Manifesto”, but with 'the censor[’s] gaps … represented by neat blank rows which became more effective than the most seductive [election] promises'! [Frank Gallagher, Four Glorious Years, page 48].

I rest my case.”

On 4 February 2009 Red Hurley asked in the Discussion above for editors to register their support for keeping the original version of “Initial Hostilities”. A majority of editors registered their disagreement with Red Hurley’s proposal with only one expressing qualified support. But these two editors have resisted any change to the phrasing of this section from anyone except themselves.

The title of the existing version is “Initial Hostilities”. The current wording, which was defended strongly by these two editors, suggests that this section is concerned with pointing out the cause(s) of the intensification of conflict from 21 January 1919 onwards – the War of Independence in other words. Using the Dan Breen statement which Breen contradicted elsewhere, the reader is left with the strong impression that Breen and Treacy brought about a war which might not otherwise have happened.

Most of the remainder of the original – and still current – version of “Initial Hostilities” is commentary on the implications of the Manifesto in regard to armed conflict, and material about a Dáil “declaration of war” – issues which are not directly related to the actual reasons for the conflict, but which seem to be intended to demolish (unstated) reasons for the conflict other than the Breen/Treacy action on 21 January 1919. It may be the case that “Initial Hostilities” is not actually the right place for any explanation of the reasons for the conflict. But it is not good enough to seek to demolish an opposing argument without stating, and sourcing, that argument. Otherwise the reader cannot judge whether either position has any real merit.

The two editors who have opposed changes to the current version have in the Discussion addressed themselves strongly to a number of issues; - some uncontested issues such as the accepted dates of the WoI, but mainly the question whether Sinn Féin sought and/or obtained a “mandate for war”. (As in the original version of the article, they seek to present arguments against some undeclared opposing position without giving a balanced, sourced exposition of that opposing position.)

But in contrast to these somewhat diversionary issues, the apparent purpose of the “Initial Hostilities” section of the article as it stands at present is to identify the actual reasons for armed conflict between 21 January 1919 and 11 July 1921.

On this point, it is correct to say that Sinn Féin sought and obtained an electoral mandate for independence, which was confirmed in several subsequent elections in 1920-21. There are many sources to verify this.

Now, if that democratic mandate was implemented without challenge, as in Norway in 1905, an independent Irish government and state would have been formed. Suppose that Sweden, or Mexico, or Denmark had then sent some modern-day longboats up the Liffey, Suir, Lee and Shannon, established fortified camps for their soldiers at strategic points, and used these armed forces to attempt to compel the people to obey Swedish, Mexican or Danish law. What would the people expect their newly elected government to do with their independence mandate? Hold another election to see whether they could get a further mandate to resist the occupying forces by “any and every means”? Has such a thing ever happened in any independent state? If so, I’d like to see sources for it. If independence does not itself imply the responsibility and obligation to resist invasion/occupation by “any and every means”, I’d like to know what it means.

On 4 February 2009 editor Red Hurley announced a poll or “plebiscite” on retaining the present version of “Initial Hostilities”. Only one other editor gave Red Hurley’s position some (qualified) support. My proposed re-wording, which, to avoid any avoidable controversy, sought the minimum of changes to the current wording of this section, has been rejected by these two editors – who then proceeded to object to bits (- items of dubious value, admittedly) of the old version that I see little merit in arguing about one way or the other.

But even if, like the 1918 election results, the “plebiscite” results of 4 Feb 2009 are to be overturned, I think the Discussion has not been completely in vain. Red Hurley commented above that “a declaration of independence was a declaration of war” . Though I’d express it differently, I think this point gets to the root of the issue, and avoids diversionary stuff like date of commencement of war, “mandates/declarations for war”, and the like.

Since my proposed revision was the cause of the current Discussion, I’ll re-address myself to a wording on these lines as soon as I can manage it.

(Incidentally, I agree that some issues now in the “Initial Hostilities” section belong in the previous section(s), and re-wording should reflect that.) Pat Muldowney (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT:

Lest I give offence by seeming to ignore the reaction above to my earlier wording, here are some comments on those points:

I am shocked (shocked, I say!) that the censoring of the 1918 Manifesto is exciting news to some editors. After all, this information is in the more reliable reference books. But perhaps these editors are only interested in those other books and authors, who shall be nameless, authors for whom British power and authority (not to use such words as violent belligerence and world-conquering imperialism) are a sort of force of nature, like the sun in the sky or the air we breathe; not to be mentioned, questioned or even noticed, like the proverbial elephant in the parlour. Fortunately, Dan Breen wasn’t so weak-minded.

The censorship of the Manifesto was just one of many manifestations of dictatorial military rule – suppression of newspapers, banning meetings, imprisonment without charge or trial, baton and bayonet charges and the like. That was the way that the quasi-military regime of the occupation forces responded to democratic practice in Ireland at the time. Violent suppression of democracy in Ireland did not start with the attempted suppression of the elected government. Compare these practices with any military regime of the present, or the violence and “colour revolutions” in Eastern Europe, Africa etc etc caused by election results being suppressed or overthrown by powerful, militaristic regimes.

The Manifesto has a link in the original version of the article, with argument based on it, but without mentioning that it was censored in the newspapers. But when some other point is made from the uncensored Manifesto, all of a sudden it's out of order, according to the comments above. Well, if it's good enough to link to, it's good enough to quote from.

The uncensored Manifesto represented the agreed position of those who were eventually elected; the policies that they, among themselves, agreed they wanted the public to know and expect and understand; the actions they promised to undertake if they were elected. Short of re-publishing the pre-election speeches, the uncensored version of the Manifesto is the simplest and most effective way of putting across, today, the gist of what the independence candidates were telling the public face to face at the time. It is what they wanted to say.

Would SF have perhaps “toned down” their Manifesto declaration in the hope of getting some sense of their intentions past the censorship? If so, their face-to-face message to the electorate would have been even more explicit than what is in the uncensored Manifesto.

Anyway, by publishing the Manifesto with “censorship blanks” in 1918, they may have suggested an even stronger message to the electorate. After all, if the blanks had contained the message that “on no account will SF countenance any armed resistance to the British forces in Ireland”, it would hardly have been censored, would it? In that way, the censoring of the Manifesto may have psychologically beefed up their message to the electorate, a message which they had ample means of conveying, with or without newspapers, to their families, friends, relatives and the communities they lived in. The electorate, in other words.

In any case, the uncensored Manifesto is significant in understanding the mentality and background to "Initial Hostilities".

Likewise for Red Hurley's first comment. The electorate voted for unreconstructed, unremorseful "militants" who had survived the 1916 fighting, served time in jail, and were now back in action.

John Redmond might have talked the talk ("[my] National Volunteers [would be] trained in readiness for the day when they would have to fight [the British]" – Freeman’s Journal 7 Oct 1916, quoted in Laffan, ROI, p.129.). But the independence movement had demonstrated in 1916 that it could, if necessary, walk the walk.

If put to it, the independence movement would employ "all and every means" to defend the people's mandate. Otherwise, the electorate would have been fools to give them a mandate for independence. Since, as Red Hurley implies, unlike Sweden the British government would interpret a Declaration of Independence as a Declaration of War.

The people knew what they were doing in the 1918 elections. Why should we second-guess them now, and pretend that British censorship prevented them from understanding the implications of voting for Sinn Féin and independence? That lesson had been beaten into them over centuries, and demonstrated bloodily around the world.

The British censorship of the Manifesto in 1918 is hardly justification for its censorship in Wikipedia in 2009.

The "State of War" declaration in Message to the Free Nations (Red Hurley's second point) represents an agreed understanding of the situation by the Dáil, which the members of the Dáil were willing to publish to the world.

Censorship, imprisonment of candidates and their supporters, suppressing newspapers, banning meetings, baton and bayonet charges – these are not peace-time measures. It was reasonable to describe this as a "state of war".

Re Red Hurley's third point ("negotiations in late 1920 broke down"): That's precisely the point. The Archbishop Clune truce-feelers failed. No negotiation forthcoming, despite the independence mandate given to the elected government.

Re RH's further remarks: "It was all a bit contradictory" in relation to the Breen "kill peelers"/"avoid bloodshed" quotes. Unfortunately, this "contradictoriness" is completely hidden in the original version of this article. From the original article you would think it was all completely clear-cut - but in one direction only.

Also, it would be fine by me to leave out the Dáil's 10 April 1919 stuff (which was in the original article, and which Red Hurley re-instated when he accused me of vandalism; but which he's now criticising. In other words, it was OK until I included it in the Revision.).

Likewise the stuff in the original version of “Initial Hostilities” about the Dáil's "declaring/not declaring" war in 1921. This could all be omitted without any damage to the article. Because the Dáil's "state of war" Message to the Free Nations of 21 Jan 1919 is equivalent to all the subsequent Dáil expressions on this subject.

It expresses the considered, deliberate and agreed wording of the Dáil throughout the period, as the Dáil records explicitly demonstrate. Like the other comments on the proposed revision, the declaring/not declaring war discussion here is merely misdirection and evasion. Whether from our different points of view we like it or not, the Dáil’s canny formulation on this issue was acceptance of a state of war, from 21 January 1919 through to 1921. Pat Muldowney (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Muldowney has gone the extra mile in researching and explaining why his suggestions should be taken on board. He has answered the points raised by Red Hurley and O Fenian to the point of exhaustion of what must at this stage be regarded as quibbles. At this stage, simply get on with it.Nomath (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do not agree with Wikipedia policy regarding sources, stop editing Wikipedia. Muldowney has still provided zero sources. O Fenian (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"If so, their face-to-face message to the electorate would have been even more explicit than what is in the uncensored Manifesto" says Muldowney. So what did they say to the electorate face-to face? Over to "The Irish War" by Tony Geraghty that says "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'. This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom". "Irish Political Prisoners, 1848-1922" by Seán McConville which says "The party's general election manifesto was vague, even as such documents go, and had been so mutilated by the Dublin Castle censor that a key clause promising to make use of 'any and every means available to render impotent the power of England and to hold Ireland in subjugation by military force or otherwise' had been excised. Read and pondered, this might have caused some who were inclined to cast their vote for Sinn Féin to think again." So the manifesto was "vague"! "The Vatican, the Bishops and Irish Politics 1919-39" by Dermot Keogh says "Among those [absent from the first meeting of the Dáil] were included some of the most prominent names in the movement. That fact, in itself, is of great importance; it means that documents passed unanimously at this first session had not been scrutinised by the main Sinn Féin leaders." This puts the selective quoting of documents passed at the meeting into a different light doesn't it? O Fenian (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian consistently puts Geraghty’s ‘Irish War’ forward. But Geraghty, a journalist, is not a historian and the book is largely polemic – or as a review put it: “Geraghty's The Irish War "presents a highly opinionated look at the last 30 years of [the post 1968] Troubles”. The final section is a "survey of 300 years of the relationship between Ireland and England in 100 pages". There are no footnotes or endnotes revealing the sources of Geraghty’s information or the basis of his opinions. Geraghty refers to the RIC as a ‘civilian force’ who ‘shrank from the use of firearms or even training with guns’ (p.332). There is no basis in fact for this assertion. Geraghty’s language is illuminating, for example where he writes that the RIC ‘bore the brunt of IRA terrorist attacks’ (ibid). This is the language of British propaganda, not objective history. This book is not a source of historical information, it is a source of opinionated information – it could be included in a page on Geraghty’s opinions. His biography would include what it says on the dust leaf of his book: "Tony Geraghty is a British subject and an Irish citizen. He is a veteran of the British paras and served as military liaison officer with US forces during the Gulf War". He puts his case forward powerfully and polemically - not historically - he uses history as part of his polemic. 'The Irish War' is not an acceptable source of objective information.

The 1918 Sinn Fein manifesto was the basis on which Sinn Fein fought the election. The parts Dublin Castle censored are the parts Sinn Fein campaigned on. Since the manifesto was published officially with the offending parts clearly marked, and since Sinn Fein clearly intended those parts to be part of its message, it communicated them to the electorate though its campaigning organization. The electorate would have known, since they were made aware, that there were parts of the manifesto the British did not like - Is O Fenian suggesting the electorate was ignorant of what they were when they voted? In any case, the fact that this was the message needs to be given to the Wikipedia reader, alongside that the British censored it - or does O Fenian want to compound the 1918 censorship in 2009? Has O Fenian the same view today that the Dublin Castle censor had in 1918? It seems so.

Sinn Fein was perfectly happy to have a peaceful transition to an Independent Republic - they put major emphasis on the Peace Conference in Versailles . It was Britain, which won no mandate in Ireland in 1918, that was the barrier - as Red Hurley suggested above, they considered a Declaration of Independence an act of War (the one Sinn Fein said Ireland was already in a state of). By imprisoning "some of the most prominent names in the movement"(Keogh above - a hostile act in itself surely), elected members of the Dail, the stage was set for physical rather than purely political confrontation. The basis of O Fenian's rearguard action is to prevent any historical information appearing that gives a balanced historical account of the context in which "initial hostilities" took place, especially British responsibility. Like Geraghty, he is more interested in propaganda. He waves around sources that support his version of historical reality and ignores others, including direct citation of the what the belligerent parties stated a the time. The reluctance to use a Dan Breen citation, that Muldowney produced, that confuses an already existing preferred message, is a perfect example.

I suggest that Muldowney goes ahead, bearing in mind his discussion of how some information might go into an earlier section. Nomath (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geraghty is a reliable source, sorry if he contradicts your revisionist view of history. O Fenian (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geraghty is a reliable source of his own opinions, sorry if his and O Fenian’s revisionist opinions are contradicted by history. Nomath (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deluded version of history maybe! He's reliable according to Wikipedia policy, and he is making a statement of fact. If you actually have a source that contradicts him, provide it now. O Fenian (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geraghty states, according to O Fenian: "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'".

Everything after ".... seriously" is a fact, what came before is opinion, Geraghty's. I agree to include the factual part and to exclude the propaganda (opinion) part. Nomath (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everything after ".... seriously" is a fact", great! That includes "This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom". O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Three questions

Pat, I must say I admire your mental agility, however setting up impossible, imaginary counter factuals does not help clarify this debate.

So I have three simple questions for everyone involved in this debate.

• 1. Did the Dail plan or order the begining of a guerrilla campaign in 1919?

• 2. Did they order the Soloheadbeg attack?

• 3. did they approve of the Soloheadbeg attack?

Answers, 1. No they did not. Some of them thought it would be necessary but some didn't. 2. No they did not, nor did the Volunteer leadership. 3. No they did not, in fact they actively dissapproved of it.

Does anyone dispute any of these points?

While people seem to be making this into a pov war, this seems to me simply a point that history is complicated. The war of Independence developed in a rather haphazard way, and there was plenty of tension between different groups within the nationalist movement. Should the article not acknowledge this? Or should it put all the responsibility for the unfolding of events on the British? Seems to me that would deny the agency of Irish people to influence events. Jdorney (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One Point

Replying to O Fenian|talk]]) 17:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC), this reveals that O Fenain (Mr Sinn-Fein-only-got-47%) is simply an infantile trickster. I was obviously addressing the sentence from the journalist's (Geraghty) commentary cited by O fenian. His latest citation of Geraghty is all opinion and should be excluded. J Dorney should address himself to this type of sham discussion that is cluttering up the debate, as it is tiresome and inantile. Please distance yourself from O Fenian, J Dorney, or advise your discussion associate to grow up. 83.71.46.39 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Play the ball, not the man.

This is a discussion not a competition. He's not my 'discussion associate' and can answer for himself. Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand, OR THE ARTICLE? If not this is not the place for youJdorney (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the large amounts of personal opinion from Muldowney which has no place on Wikipedia, I provide secondary sources to back up my arguments. O Fenian (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One Point

(I saved my point too early, in error - consider this) Replying to O Fenian|talk]]) 17:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC), this reveals that O Fenain (Mr Sinn-Fein-only-got-47%) is simply an infantile trickster. I was obviously addressing the sentence from the journalist's (Geraghty) commentary cited by O fenian. His latest citation of Geraghty is all opinion and should be excluded. J Dorney should address himself to this type of sham discussion that is cluttering up the debate, as it is tiresome and infantile. Please distance yourself from O Fenian, J Dorney, or advise your discussion associate to grow up.

Jdorney: "should it put all the responsibility for the unfolding of events on the British?" No but it should put some - there are two sides in a war. Currently, there is none - that is not history, it is propaganda, of the type the British put out at that time. Also, "plenty of tension between different groups within the nationalist movement". Really, what about 'tension' in the British movement? Does that get a look in?

Now, since JDorney says he is not associated with O Fenian, why did he put a message on O Fenian's talk page encouraging him to go off and mess up another page on Irish history. Jdorney obviously approves of O Fenian's methods.

However, to show good intentions jdorney, please give an opinion on the use of Geraghty, on O Fenian's 47% point and on a refusal to allow (as the page's de facto gatekeeper) any mention of the 1918 Sinn Fein election manifesto. Or at least advise O Fenian (your dis-associate) to stop insulting Muldowney, who is making an effort to discuss this matter through. Nomath (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Thanks. And lose the paranoia. I left a message on a number of users' pages to give their opinions on an article, which is exactly what we're supposed to be doing here in the case of a dispute. He didn't reply. With that exception I've had no contact with him.

Second. I've contributed to wikipedia for going on four years now. Including writing most of this particular article in the first place. I don't need to prove my good intentions to you. Our convention here is to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith.

Third, (and can we please discuss the issues from now on and not personalities?) the article. What OFenian is doing is defending the current version, which, in line with the policy that wikipedia is supposed to represent the mainstream consensus view. To this extent I agree with him. Do you deny that Soloheadbeg is usually cited as the start of the conflict? Or that the Dail and Volunteers had an uneasy relationship at times? You could start by replying to the point I made above.

Re Sinn Fein, it's my understanding that they got about 47% of the vote but that it would have been higher had more consticuencies been contested. What's the issue there re content for the article?

Re Geraghty, not an especially good source for this article in my opinion but the point is that he's repeating the standard view. It's not our job here to go arguing that the general academic consensus is wrong.

Finally re the British role. Of course they had some role to play in the start of the conflict, to the extent that they were arresting SinnFein, IRB and Volunteer activists since 1916. But does the article not already address this? I find the suggestion that the article is British propaganda absurd to be honest. Jdorney (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.

Could you explicitly address that point to O Fenian’s insults directed at Muldowny

Our convention here is to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith.

Ditto, do you explicitly address that to O Fenian?

Wikipedia is supposed to represent the mainstream consensus view. To this extent I agree with him.

It is not the current consensus view. It is the current revisionist view. The problem in any case is not with views, it is a page (or part of it) being monopolised by one view. Denying the SF manifesto on the page is censorship - same as in 918. That should end. Please address yourself to whether it is ok to put the relevant manifesto point in (plus that it was censored). Please also state what is wrong with referencing the Dail itself.

Do you deny that Soloheadbeg is usually cited as the start of the conflict?

It is regarded as the firing of the first shots in the War of Independence. It was not the start of the conflict – war is the continuation of politics by other means. It is a sharpening and deepening of conflict. We are back to the Sarajevo question and the causes of WWI. A Serbian nationalist fired a few shots at an Archduke in a car – Dan Breen shot some RIC men guarding some gelignite. On its own that is entirely inadequate. It is not even first year second level history.

Or that the Dail and Volunteers had an uneasy relationship at times?

That is as relevant as asserting that the British government and Army had an uneasy relationship at times (not surprising in an army whose officers mutinied in 1914 when ordered to confront the UVF). So what?

Re Sinn Fein, it's my understanding that they got about 47% of the vote but that it would have been higher had more constituencies been contested. What's the issue there re content for the article?

The issue relates to manifesto and whether there was a mandate for fighting a war on behalf of the Irish people – and the right to resist once an assertion of (what was perceived to be) a democratic mandate was denied. Your formulation is mealy mouthed, it implies that SF should have contested more constituencies, whereas they stood in nearly all (apart from in six Parliamentary Party pact areas in the North). It was SF's opponents who did not contest SF in 25 of the 73 seats SF won. The reason, and I know it is difficult for you to commit to print, is because SF support was overwhelming in those areas. SF support therefore is better stated at 65% plus in the 1918 election. Do you agree?

Re Geraghty, not an especially good source for this article in my opinion but the point is that he's repeating the standard view. It's not our job here to go arguing that the general academic consensus is wrong.

No he is not. He is repeating the standard pro-revisionist view, not surprising for an ex-para. And his book is completely unsourced. But, not an especially good source – O Fenian please take note.

Finally re the British role. Of course they had some [!] role to play in the start of the conflict, to the extent that they were arresting SinnFein, IRB and Volunteer activists since 1916.

The setting up of a “quasi military government" in May 1918 by the Viceroy, Lord French – does that count? The fact that Sinn Fein could not operate openly, that its meetings were banned and that censorship was the norm – did that also contribute? What about locking up many Sinn Fein candidates and leaving them in jail after they were elected? How about that? Then there is Red Hurley’s point that a Declaration of Independence by the Dail was regarded by the British as a declaration of war. OK with that?

OK, I concede, you have gone some of the way. British arrests count as contributing to hostilities.

I find the suggestion that the article is British propaganda absurd to be honest.

I did not assert that the article as a whole was British propaganda. I asserted that suggesting that the British did not play a significant part as a cause of war is a point of propaganda the British put out at the time (they also repeated at nauseam that Sinn Fein only received 47% of the votes cast).

The point is, when (as I presume he will) Muldowney (or anyone) attempts to introduce the SF manifesto, Lord French’s appointment, Dail statements about an existing state of war and other relevant sourced points, will it be reverted in a continuing exercise of censorship and (in effect) vandalism? Can you give your assurance that you will not attempt to revert, but will simply edit – in good faith – or at the very least advise others (you say you agree with) to cease engaging in acts of censorship and vandalism. Otherwise Wikipedia (in this case) is a forum for the monomaniac and crank. Nomath (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You dismiss reliable sources, yet provide NONE of your own. Why? Because the views of maths teachers are not supported by real historians? O Fenian (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomath, One what makes you think I don't want to say that SF had big opular support in 1918? What I meant by they 'would have had more support' was the very opposite of what you took from it - they had more support than 47%. You seem to be attributing pov to me that I do not have. Re OFenian, if he's making personal attacks on PM then he should stop. Beyond that I don't have the slightest interest in getting involved in a personal spat between two others users.

As for 'revisionist' view, no it's not, Soloheadbeg has always been cited as the start of the conflict. No less a revisionist than Peter Hart argues against this, arguing for 1920 as the start of the real war. Don't be so paranoid. I have no particularly strong feelings about an election nearly 100 years ago. I just think the article should try to depict the event in all its complexity. Re the complicated relationship between th Dail and the Vols., it is central surely to understanding the development of the campaign and indeed the civil war to appreciate this, no? Jdorney (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coming to this cold after a long time

First, I regard the absence of the Sinn Féin Manifesto (and in particular the fact that it was published with lines blanked and what those lines were) to be a serious omission that undermines the quality of the article. Without any citation that confirms what campaigners told voters what was in those missing lines, it has to be left to the reader to work it out. To do otherwise is speculation.

Secondly, I regard the debate over 'Initial Hostilities' as an empty one. There is a great deal of prior explanation of the context and diplomatic manoueverings [a reference to the secession of Norway 15 years earlier would be good, btw]. Yes, the case is highly parallel to the gunshot in Sarajevo. Nobody really thinks that WW1 really started because a lone anarchist shot the Head of State - it merely provided the spark to a pile of tinder. The same with Breen.

Third, we should be very cautious about credible sources for citations, that they are professional and NPOV. Journalists are not historians - they are famous for getting a conclusion first and then finding or inventing facts to support them. And I'm not just talking about Tim Pat Coogan.

Hope that helps. --Red King (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The manifesto is currently in the article. What is not in the article is this sentence;

• The manifesto of the Sinn Féin party, which won the elections held on 14 December 1918, stated: "Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of [an Irish] Republic … by making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.

As the latter part of the quote did not appear in the published manifesto, it is misleading to include it in that context, and in particular that section. Numerous inferences have been drawn by certain editors above regarding the meaning of the manifesto, inferences which are contradicted by reliable sources. More detail does need to be added about the elections, however it does not belong in the "Initial hostilities" section really does it? O Fenian (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that material currently under heading "Initial Hostilities" should not be there, also the point made earlier that much of the Discussion on this to date has been beside the point. That's progress, I think. Pat Muldowney (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in "Initial hostilities" as it is part of the context. If there are reliable citations (i.e., not journalists and other amateurs) that confirm that the sentence did exist, that it was censored and that the manifesto appeared with a very evident blank line, then this should be stated. Certainly we cannot make arbitrary claims if there is no reliable evidence as to what canvassers said, but it would (to my mind) be ok to say "Without firm evidence, it is possible only to conjecture how it was that canvassers explained the blank line" and stop there. Readers may guess or not as they wish but we mustn't tell them waht to think. --Red King (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Red King here. It's fine to provide all of the context (including he SF manifesto), but arguing for an interpretation is not within our brief. So for example, we should acknowledge that, SF had a mandate for independence, and that The First Dail was in the process of being represssed even as it met for the first time. But also, the Dail did not sanction the attack at Soloheadbeg, was initially ambiguous about violence and took responsibility for the armed campaign only in May 1921. Hence it can be argued that there was democratic mandate for guerrilla warfare in defence of the elected Parliament but can (and has) also be argued that the Volunteers campaign was largely outside the control of teh civilian wing of hte movement. In short we should present both sides. Jdorney (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy Macardle's "Irish Republic" gives the censored version in full, for comparison. Also, a publisher was found for the uncensored version (details later). P.M. 11/2/09 Pat Muldowney (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dail was outlawed in September 1919, and was not "in the process of being repressed" in January. Initial hostilities are a fact of every war, and an encyclopedia article must show 2 things - why 21 January was later considered to be the start date (Soloheadbeg) - and what was later considered the legal basis for starting a war (the 1918 election). Never mind that the two were arguably unconnected, and that the Dail and volunteers were on what I call parallel lines into 1920, or later. Maybe a separate and linked page on all the legal/political/military/1916/1917/conscription/ThosAshe/Versailles ramifications would be a good idea, and I would be glad to help with that. Showing the different threads running from 1916 to 1919. The fact is that the outside world did not consider that there was a war on, nor that there was a separate Irish political entity to recognise until after the Treaty was signed; and, like it or not, this is an outside world encyclopedia.Red Hurley (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just on the repression point. The Dail was formally outlawed in September 1919, but something like one third of its representatives had been arrested even before it met for the first time, so it was hardly unhindered in January 1919.

But equally, on the manifesto issue, perhaps the manifesto left the possibility of revolutionary violence open, but did SF campaign on this basis for the 1918 election? Jdorney (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right; the slogan went "vote him in to get him out!" as MPs had rights and could not be detained or interned so easily as anyone else (54 turned up at the second session). Even so, there was no law forbidding Irish MPs from meeting. It was only banned in September when they realised that the Dáil was not going away. I don't know of a source that promised immediate violence, and no doubt Sinn Féin didn't want to frighten voters away in 1918. Looking at Sinn Féin's other material at the time, it ranged from militarist to pacifist - and who knows, Versailles might have worked. Going on about 1916 was obviously going to annoy the French.Red Hurley (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Honest question, would going on about 1916 have annoyed the French? i didn't follow...Jdorney (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(After a long delay) Lots of reasons. France had endured the battle of Verdun in 1916; as a state they had lost the largest percentage of men in the 1914-18 war; the volunteers in 1916 had links to Imperial Germany; and latterly Sinn Fein had campaigned against conscription in 1918. Whether or not we agree with these now, there were reasons for your average French politician in 1919 to consider that the new Sinn Fein brand of Irish nationalism was not such a good thing as the IPP. Therefore Clemenceau ignored Irish requests to attend at Versailles - did not even answer letters - but that would not have been foreseeable to voters in Ireland in 1918, many of whom expected more from Versailles. And you couldn't attend a peace conference if you were still at war.Red Hurley (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter of accreditation, Oct 1921

The letter was not recognised as such by the British, who always maintained that they were negotiating with elected MPs representing most of Ireland. Lloyd-George specifically refused to recognise a Republic on the run-up to the negotiations and they were briefly called off for that reason. When Griffith, Collins & Co arrived to start negotiations their letters of accreditation were deliberately not requested in the usual way. Dev neglected to tell this to his supporters, perhaps because he had just been made head of state mainly (or solely) to provide diplomatic accreditations.86.42.197.141 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic

A pathetic, snivelling article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.191.234 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So no constructive comments? - RoyBoy 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Declaration - again

Sorry about this folks, but it still needs a sentence on the Dáil's ambivalence in 1919 and its lack of a declaration or statement on the fact of war until 1921.Red Hurley (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On 25 October 1917 a National Council including Arthur Griffith's Sinn Féin Party, IRB members and Volunteers adopted unanimously a new Constitution for Sinn Féin containing the following Preamble: "[Sinn Féin] shall, in the name of the Sovereign Irish people: (a) Deny the right and oppose the will of the British Parliament and British Crown or any other foreign government to legislate for Ireland; (b) Make use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise." The aim of Sinn Féin was declared to be the "securing of international recognition of Ireland as an independent Irish Republic, and exposing the pretence that England governed Ireland by consent rather than force".

On 16 April 1918 a Conscription Act was passed, under which conscription could be put into effect in Ireland at any time by Order-in-Council. Co. Longford-born UVF supporter and organiser General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff and Great War military adviser to Lloyd George, declared that he was "not afraid to take one hundred or one hundred and fifty thousand recalcitrant Irishmen" for the British Army. This meant that it would be legal to arrest Irishmen, send them to France, and shoot them if they refused to kill citizens of some other countries with whom their own country had no quarrel, and whom they depended on to support their case for Irish self-determination in the post-War Peace Conference.

In response to the Conscription crisis, John Dillon withdrew the Irish Parliamentary Party from the British Parliament, along with the All-for-Ireland League MP's, in order to organise resistance to conscription. On 18 April 1918 the Lord Mayor of Dublin organised a conference in the Mansion House of representatives of the Irish Party, Sinn Féin, Labour and the All-for-Ireland-League. A joint statement was signed by these, declaring that the Conscription Act was a Declaration of War on Ireland.

On 25 April 1918 the meaning of "persons of hostile origin" in DORA was extended, from citizens of countries with which Britain was at war, to include persons born in Ireland.

John Redmond was dead (6 March 1918) at this point, but he had "warned that conscription would be resisted in every village in Ireland, and his National Volunteers trained in readiness for the day when they would have to fight it" (would, not might), Laffan, RoI p. 129, from Freemans Journal 7 October 1916. (For comparison, the Polish "January Rising" (1863-1865) was initiated by Russian conscription policy in Poland.)

Britain’s war policy in Ireland is demonstrated by: (1) the appointment, on May 10, 1918, of Lord French as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as a military viceroy at the head of a quasi-military government; (2) French took steps to send an extra 12,000 troops to Ireland (25,000 were already there) and planned to establish four “entrenched air camps” which could be used to bomb Sinn Féiners; (3) following a proclamation by Lord French on May 16, 1918 in relation to an alleged German plot, more than 100 members of Sinn Féin were imprisoned without trial under the Defence of the Realm Act. (Field Marshal Lord John French came from Loyalist background in Ireland, had helped in the organisation of the UVF against the British Government, was a leader of the 1914 British Army revolt against the government's policy of Irish Home Rule, and had led the British Army in the first phase of the Great War. His appointment as Military Governor was a very clear statement.)

When the Dáil first met it made its own statement: "...the existing state of war, between Ireland and England, can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated by the armed forces of England." - Dáil Éireann, Message to the Free Nations of the World, January 1919, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Message_to_the_Free_Nations_of_the_World.

Nothing ambivalent about either side, it seems, and no shortage of declarations or statements. (I undertook a while back to make a contribution to this article, but am prevented by lack of time. - An explanation, not an excuse!) P. Muldowney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To see how the British government changed from a position favouring a peaceful settlement in Ireland (1912-14), to its customary use of force (1916-22), it would be necessary to track in detail the steps by which the Loyalist interest in Ireland, along with traditional imperial concerns [[[in which Ireland and its seaports and airspace were the “Heligoland of the west” – see for instance Hansard, Gov. of Ireland Debates, March 1920 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1920/mar/30/government-of-ireland-bill-1#S5CV0127P0_19200330_HOC_399 ; or General Sir Henry Wilson's 1921 comments on the evil effects on Egypt, India etc. of making concessions to the "murderers" in Ireland (see recent History Ireland biography of Wilson) ]]], acquired increasing dominance of the British government’s Irish policy. The Wilson/French points above are just the tip of the iceberg. Some of the main points are covered in Macardle’s “Irish Republic”.

On the Irish side, one needs to track their “post-Great War Peace Conference strategy” from the point at which it was established in conjunction with the Easter Rising (see Eoin Neeson’s recent book), to the collapse of Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh’s mission to Paris in 1919 (recorded in various books).

The critical moment in these developments in British-Irish relations was the election of de Valera in East Clare in July 1917. The effect of this is carefully tracked by Macardle. Lloyd George did not react in knee-jerk manner, but on 23 October 1917, addressing the House of Commons, he stated that de Valera was not given to mere rhetoric, and that his considered policy was "sovereign [Irish] independence, which [Britain] could not possibly accept … under any circumstances".

French’s appointment followed. French declared that "if they leave me alone I can do what is necessary" (M, p. 235). Before departure for Ireland Lloyd George, conscious of the American factor (as the Irish were), warned French “to make sure that the other side fired first” (Macardle). Pat Muldowney (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete and utter farce.

"Michael Collins held the British general Henry Hughes Wilson responsible for the attacks on Catholics in the north and had him killed in June 1922, an event that inadvertently helped to trigger the Irish Civil War (Winston Churchill insisted after the killing that Collins take action against the Anti-Treaty IRA, whom he assumed to be responsible)."

What absolute utter drivel. Name one historian who openly thinks Collins was responsible for Wilsons assassination? There is no clear cut proof for it, only speculation. Tim Pat Coogan came up with some half baked story that he probably did order it but he's not even a real historian anyway.

Confirming speculation as the truth is highly unscholarly for this encyclopedia. I almost vomited when I read that, any respect I ever had for wikipedia went down the toilet along with it. Shame on you. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall now be informing my students to stay well away from this internet geek assembled bag of nonsense. How dare you consider yourselves competant to write an article about this when you make such elementary mistakes like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well counter the comment that made you almost vomit instead, you are implying you know something on the subject, well add it and stop the whining about how bad the project is. BigDunc^Talk 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not defend ignorance with ignorance. If you have the neck to contribute to an encyclopedia you should know yourself. ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. Your answer defies your embaressing lack of knowledge about the period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If Tim Pat Coogan came up with the theory, perhaps you can explain why it is in Frank O'Connor's book, published well before Coogan's? O Fenian (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said he 'come up with it', I said he came out with one theory, his is one of many amongst poor historians, O'Connor being another one.

I highly question the level of scholarship you people are familiar with. The amount of times Hopkinson's book has been quoted - universally held in disdain by most scholars - is indicative of your collective ignorance.

P.S- I find it fascinating that two fenians are the quickest to jump to the defence of moronic theories. How unique! 86.40.107.236 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "Tim Pat Coogan came up with some half baked story that he probably did order it". So I ask again, if he came up with it why it is in Frank O'Connor's book, published well before Coogan's? You might want to obtain a copy of Margery Forester's book too, published 19 years before Coogan's. O Fenian (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a pedantic little man, aren't you? he 'came up with' I never said 'Coogan invented the theory...'. None of the people so far mentioned are historians as such. None of them have or have held tenure in a major university. None of them participate or have participated in any serious scholarly journal. Wikipedia (And you are substantiating it by the way) is written by naieve 'scholars' for the general public. None of your vain internet tricks is dissuading anyone from the perception that you lack the competance to have any opinion on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that Coogan's theory is actually radically different from any presented before? And I find it slightly ironic that someone complaining about academic standards cannot spell words such as "naive", "competence" and "embarrassing". O Fenian (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree O Fenian but think it is time to not feed the troll. BigDunc^Talk 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect academic standards from myself, I expect academic standards in an encyclopedia. So having a go at spelling is just an irrelevancy.

Calling me a troll says a lot about this websites frame of mind. The Wilson assertion IS BY NO MEANS IN THE MAINSTREAM. You have not mentioned ANY PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS in your defence. CALLING ME A TROLL IS A PERSONAL INSULT. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If the cap fits! Unfortunately the Wilson assertion is the mainstream, as you would know if you had read Forester's book which I mentioned above. Would you care to list any professional historians that have actually published work that contradicts the Wilson assertion? I see you have not listed any as yet. O Fenian (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... That says absolutely everything. Foster is the most revisionist historian of our generation. I'm not even saying that Wilson's assassination wasn't ordered by Collins, I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to support the conclusion. Any historian of the period mentioning the Wilson assassination will discuss the possibility of his involvement. I do not deny the possibility of his involvement. All I'm saying is that the evidence is insufficient to claim so blandly that he was responsible. There is most certainly not a consensus which agree's with that POV.

Off the top of my head, the number of historians who say there is insufficient evidence that Collins ordered Wilson's assassination there is David Fitzpatrick, Tom Garvin, Brian Farrel, F.X. Martin, T.W. Moody, R.B. MacDowell, Anne Dolan... And many many more who have written of the period.

Let me clarify this for you if you still refuse to understand. I DO NOT DENY MICHAEL COLLINS MAY HAVE ORDERED WILSONS ASSASSINATION. What I am saying is that the EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT. Thus, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA SHOULD NOT STATE SO BLANDLY WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY THAT WILSONS ASSASSINATION WAS ORDERED BY COLLINS.

I apologise for the caps, but I'm finding it impossible to say anything to you without you being pedantic and picking and choosing what you want to hear. Needed to make this loud and clear. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I suggest you read Forester. I also suggest you read what I asked for, and then you will see why the list you have provided falls short of what I asked for. I also suggest you stop being a troll. O Fenian (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats it. Wikipedia has officially failed as a project. If ill educated Republican trolls like you are writing the Irish history articles in this place then there is nothing I can do but shake my head and walk away. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, how on earth can you dispute my post? Have you even heard of half of the historians I've mentioned? I'm 36 and I've been reading Irish history since before I can remember. And judging from your responses you seem ill equipped to provide any historiographical background. After all, its much easier to dismiss someone else as being a troll than actually admitting you are wrong. Which is why Wikipedia doesn't work. The fact that no admins have stepped in as of yet underlies that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its problems but how about you cite a few sources and explain your case instead of abusing people? All you've said is, ' the article is crap, you people are idiots'. Not going to win friends and influence people to be honest. Jdorney (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said in my first post. BigDunc^Talk 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of elementary error reverted

7000 seems to be the norm, but obviously the self-proclaimed "expert" who thinks Tim Pat Coogan came up with a theory almost 60 years after it began knows better.. O Fenian (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take me out of context. I was merely saying that Coogan was one of many who endorsed the theory, 'came up with' doesn't mean invented. I'm well aware of that so stop being a little troll.

Martin Gilbert in his biography of Churchill (And I would say the most authoritive account for the sec. of war's involvement in the war of independence) gives 8,000. As does Tom Bowden in 'Revolt to Revolution' and Charles Townshend in 'Political Violence in Ireland'. As does the official documents which raised 8,000 Black and Tans for service in Ireland. Now please tell me where you got the idea that 7,000 is the norm. That seems to be taken straight out of the sky. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just did say, try looking before trolling. And in other words it is ok for you to discount any published source if it states something you do not agree with? Yet when that is done in relation to something else you cry and moan like a child. O Fenian (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? You have an uncanny ability for sheer irrelevancy, always ignoring those aspects of an argument which stand against yours. Professional historians don't agree with the conclusions of amateurs that Wilson's assassination was ordered by Collins - instead they say its very likely possible, but that the evidence is insufficient to make such a claim. Similarily, professional historians agree with the official figure of 8,000. NOW PLEASE STOP IGNORING POINTS THAT CONTRADICT YOU. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had read Churchill's own book, "The World Crisis: 1918-1928. The aftermath. 1929", as opposed to one of his biographies, you would known that Churchill himself gives a figure of 7,000. There are countless other sources that say 7000, so perhaps you could explain why you are content to have opinion presented as fact on this occasion? O Fenian (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't read any of those sources whatsoever, you're using google book, which is quite frankly embaressing. Churchill was wrong, it was an oversight on his part obviously. People can make mistakes when they look back, especially Churchill (He is well known for lacking a good brain for specifics) 8,000 is the official figure for the time. Please stop trolling. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to prove how obtuse you are, I've decided to play you are your own game: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Black+and+Tans%22+8000&btnG=Search+Books

So Churchill's biographer is the "most authoritive account for the sec. of war's involvement in the war of independence", even more authoritative than Churchill himself? I see you have still not answered the question, why if so many sources say 7000 are you content with having 8000 stated as fact? Perhaps you should read what you write, if you are able. O Fenian (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

An equal number of sources give 8,000, as I mentioned above. If you any capacity for critical thinking and the historiography of all of this, or even a passing familiarity with Churchill's writings, you would know very well his tendency to be unspecific. just do a couple of searches with 8,000, your entire argument is absurd. Look at how many sources came up with 8,000. Now go off and read a book and don't dare to come back to wikipedia until you know your history.

You must live in a bizarre world if "equal" means "considerably less than", as you would know if you had actually looked at the results in any detail. You still have not answered the question, what did you say above about ignoring points that contradict you? O Fenian (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The official document says 8,000. Thorough professional historians say 8,000. Churchill's biographer says 8,000. You judge the sources by the quality of the information and the quality of the historian, not the 'quantity' of historians who make the assertion. STOP TROLLING.

So if any historian disagrees, they should be ignored? But that contradicts what you say in the section above surely? How can you justify this hypocritical and inconsistent approach? Your approach boils down to "I decide what is right and which historians should be used, as I know everything which is why I said Tim Pat Coogan came up with a theory that has been around since before he was even born". Laughable. O Fenian (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP TROLLING. You are continuing to take my Tim Pat Coogan sentance out of context, despite being told countless times that I didn't claim he invented the theory. If you knew anything about this, you would be able to judge the quality of the sources, not rely on google book! History is about critical thinking, give it a go sometime! Most important history is about READING. I HIGHLY reccomend you give that a go ;)

So as above, your definition of judging the sources means disregarding any source that disagrees with what you think, despite you being demonstrably wrong about certain things? Your attempt to backpedal over your Coogan claim has failed, your sentence was clear and unambiguous. Also you are demonstrably lying about what a source says. You say above "..gives 8,000. As does Tom Bowden in 'Revolt to Revolution'". Unfortunately for you the page can be seen here and it says there were "nearly 7,000". Will you now claim that Bowden is not reliable? O Fenian (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats good internet scholarship. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the purposes of clarification, I admit I was wrong about Bowden. I'm afraid I can only rely on my memory which sometimes lets me down in situations like this. I'm afraid I don't get all of my information and evidence off the internet so I apologise if I occassionally make errors such as this. I also notice you don't contest Townshend or Gilbert. 86.40.107.236 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil War

Why is it a war of 'independence' and not an Irish-Irish-British civil war?Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Keith, why has it been centuries of peace and civilisation from the nice British humanitarians against the barbarous Irish rather than centuries of savagery and inhumanity from the British (i.e. English and their cannonfodder in Scotland and Wales) against the peaceful and free Irish people? Yes, I do know - truly I do - that the British just took our land and imposed their laws and language upon us for centuries because they were helping us, making us part of the civilised English state within which we could only engage in mere "civil war" (rather than wars for our independence) as the myths of that state developed. Alas, us Paddies (being thick of course) generally think there was something quite repulsive about it all (and that is being euphemistic). I'll sign off now.86.44.18.40 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a berk Anon, it's a civil question. What did the working class Irish get out of the 'WofI'? The exchange of a prod overlord for a catholic? What I'm getting at is that it looks to be as much a counter-revolution by the local rich in which they dump the British connection because the rebellion against it has elements of class war as well as nationalist flapdoodle.

What's this got to do with British crimes against humanity? Oh and stop trying to float a false alibi for the Scotch and Welsh, they were up to their necks in it. There's a good chap. 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)