Meda Ryan Speech at Kilmichael Commemoration (Nov 28 2004)

national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Sunday November 28, 2004 14:28

by Barry McGarry

Meda Ryan challenges Peter Hart to name his anonymous sources

Delivered at Kilmichael ambush site November 28 2004 at 1pm
By Meda Ryan (author Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter Mercier Press 2003)
For background to controversy with revisionist historian Peter Hart, see www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66994 and news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4043737.stm

Cover of Meda Ryan's Book on Tom Barry (which answers Peter Hart)

On this spot, eighty-four years ago today the first major ambush against the British Forces in Ireland took place. It was Sunday, 28 November 1920. Here at Kilmichael, Tom Barry and thirty-six young Volunteers took on the dreaded Auxiliaries who were stationed in Macroom Castle at the time. We are here today to commemorate this event, and to recall the bravery of Barry and his men and to remember also Jim O'Sullivan, Michael MacCarthy and Pat Deasy who were fatally wounded here. These young men were tricked into accepting a false surrender by Auxiliaries who had fought in the Great War and most were commissioned officers.

Due to a certain type of historical revisionism in recent years, a cloud has hung over the Kilmichael ambush and the actions of its commander, Tom Barry, on that day. A controversy has surrounded this ambush because all, except two of the Auxiliaries, who participated, were killed on the site. The question posed is whether or not these Auxiliary soldiers surrendered, and subsequently took up guns, and again used them against the Volunteers.

In 1998 Peter Hart, who was attached to Queen's University Belfast and now lives in Newfoundland, stated that Tom Barry's history of Kilmichael “is riddled with lies and evasions”. Strong words about a man who was known for his uprightness and courage, and who fought against so much odds during the War of Independence.

In my research I could not find Barry's lies nor did I discover where the evasions occurred, as Barry accepted full responsibility for the Kilmichael ambush.

Peter Hart has based his theory mainly on three separate issues.
(First): On the official British establishment publication of the ambush details.
(Second): On a Report that Barry allegedly wrote after the ambush.
(Third): On interviews, two of which he conducted himself.

Let us return to the reason that the Volunteers found it necessary to undertake military action. Home Rule, which looked imminent before the Great War, was suspended for its duration, but it was not honoured when the war ended. The overwhelming success of Sinn Fein in the 1918 election meant that the Irish people placed their trust in their own representatives. The meeting of the First Dáil on 21 January 1919 laid the constitutional basis of the new Irish State. However, the British parliament declared it an illegal assembly.

The oath of allegiance to the Dáil of the Irish Republic by Volunteers, established them as an army for that parliament. As the RIC scoured the country and arrested Volunteers and Sinn Féin members, it was obvious that the British government did not want the Irish people to control their own destiny. Tom Barry, himself said, “When we went into the revolution, we had to feel that we were doing it for a purpose, we had been slaves for 700 years. When we tried to break free of this, they proclaimed anything that was Nationalistic. Our people resisted arrest and that resistance led to shooting,” and ultimately to guerrilla warfare.

It is good for us, at this remove, to recall what happened on this spot eighty-four years ago today - the 28th day of November. The Auxiliaries who were stationed at Macroom Castle had created terror among the citizens in these local districts. Their house raids, beating men, taunting of women and taking pot shots at civilians who worked in the fields was their method of intimidating the people. The intention was to dampen the spirits of Volunteers. The activities of these Auxiliaries encroached in the Cork No 3 Brigade area, the borders of which, is just down the road from here. On Sundays previous to this, these Auxiliaries travelled in Crossley tenders as they went on their rampage. So they had to be apprehended within Cork No. 1 Brigade area - in the stretch of road along here, before they reached Gleann crossroads, which led in different directions, just west of here. According to Tom Barry, there should be no further delay in challenging them.

The Ambush

Briefly, I will tell you about Tom Barry and “The Boys of Kilmichael”. (As a personal comment, I just want to say that my uncle, Pat O'Donovan was one of “The Boys of Kilmichael” positioned in Section 2, close to the three men who were fatally wounded.)
Tom Barry had been appointed Training Officer and Commanding Officer of the 3rd West Cork Brigade Flying Column. This spot here was carefully chosen. Barry borrowed an IRA tunic from Paddy O'Brien in order to slow down any approaching enemy lorry. At 2 am on the morning of 28 November the Column met in Sullivan's Ahalina (outside Enniskeane). Each man was armed with a rifle and thirty-five rounds of ammunition; a few had revolvers and Barry had two Mills bombs.

Fr. O'Connell had heard the men's confessions at the side of the road. It was 3 am on this extremely cold, wet night when the men were told that they were moving to Kilmichael to take on the dreaded Macroom based Auxiliaries.

Barry and his men walked through by-roads and cross-country, mainly in silence. They trudged on, locked in their own thoughts as the November rain lashed against them. They were drenched when they reached Kilmichel. Meanwhile, Pat Deasy, who had been ill during training had been replaced by another man, but now well again, had followed the Column close behind, and pleaded with Barry to participate in the ambush. Barry agreed.

It was 8.15 am when the Column reached this ambush position. The men were wet, cold and hungry. Barry gave them their positions, and told them that the terrain allowed for no retreat.

Barry’s plan was straightforward. He would be at the Command Post (down there), supported by three picked marksmen.

(SECTIONS:
Section 1, was up there, on the rocks, in from the Command Post. Section 2, was just behind the monument here. Section 3, was subdivided, with half of the men just around the bend here and the other half across the road. Two scouts were north the road and one south of the Command post.)

The hours passed slowly. The men, without food since 6 o'clock the previous evening, lay in their rain-sodden clothes. Then the people in an isolated house sent down a few buckets of tea and a home made cake - all these people had - but this meagre supply of food did not go far. The men waited, and the day dragged. As the day wore on it began to freeze, so that the clothes froze on their bodies as they hid behind rocks. All the time Barry stood on the open road, as he fingered his mills bomb. He was about to call off the ambush when a sidecar with some Volunteers arrived - they hadn't received mobilisation orders on time. Barry acted instantly and shouted to them to gallop up the side boreen.

Just a few minutes later - at 4.05 the first lorry came round the bend, began to slow as it neared the uniformed figure. Barry hurled the bomb, blew the whistle and fired the automatic.

The grenade must have landed on the driver’s seat because the lorry lurched forward, then stopped a few yards in front of the Command Post where Barry stood. The Auxiliaries jumped out and there was sharp fighting, even hand to hand action. When the men in the first lorry had been dealt with, Barry commanded the three men beside him at the Command Post, to move with him towards the second lorry. This lorry had been engaged by No. 2 Section, which was in the middle of the ambush area, behind the monument here, high up on the rocks.

The second group of Auxiliaries had taken up positions beside the ditch on the road. Some also had taken cover behind their lorry as the fight went on. Barry, with the three men at the Command Post, crouched along the dyke, and stole along at the back. When they were about half way between the two lorries they heard the Auxiliaries shout, “We surrender! We surrender!” Some actually threw away their rifles and the firing stopped. The Volunteers accepted the surrender. In No. 2 Section some Volunteers who thought it was over, stood up. But the Auxiliaries again took up their guns; some used their revolvers to open fire. Following this encounter three Volunteers were fatally wounded.

Realising that the Auxiliaries had made a false surrender Barry shouted at his men to retaliate.

Barry and the three men with him dropped into a prone position and began a rapid fire. Other Volunteers in No. 2 Section did likewise. The Auxiliaries knew they were sandwiched between two groups of men. Once again they shouted, “We surrender”; but at this stage Barry shouted to his men to keep firing and "do not stop until I tell you.” Later he said, “Now for that I take full responsibility… The only blame I have to myself is that I didn’t warn these young lads about the old war trick of a false surrender.” He never forgave himself for this.

It was a tough fight and when all the Auxiliaries appeared dead, Barry then gave the cease-fire order. Two Volunteers in No. 2 Section, Michael McCarthy and Jim O’Sullivan were dead, and Pat Deasy who had been sick and had pleaded with Barry to take part, was seriously wounded. He died later. Barry sent scouts for a priest and a doctor, and ordered the lorries to be burned. Many of the Column men were in shock. Barry conscious of this and of the need to jerk them back to reality ordered the men to get into formation, gave the “attention” command and ordered them to re-load. He marched and counter-marched his Column, their faces lit in the winter twilight by the flickering light from the burning vehicles. Barry halted with the Column before the rock where the bodies of the two dead Volunteers lay, and ordered them to “present arms”.

Controversial Aspects

In the controversy that has surrounded this ambush Peter Hart treated unfavourably the role Tom Barry played in the fight for freedom. Though Hart has accepted that there was a surrender that day at Kilmichael, yet in his analysis he does not accept that there was a false surrender. But I suggest that because the Auxiliaries put their guns to use once more after a surrender they reactivated the fight. Therefore they engaged in a false surrender.

To back-up his argument Peter Hart interviewed two people, whom he has acknowledged as having participated in the ambush. However he does not name these people and only gives them anonymous initials.

You, here today would wonder why any of the men who fought with Tom Barry on this day 84 years ago would want to remain anonymous. I question it also. Why will Peter Hart not name his informants? Furthermore, he says he interviewed one of the men in 1988, and another - a scout, on 19 November 1989. We all understood that the last survivor of the Kilmichael ambush was rifleman, Ned Young, whose faculties were impaired during his final years - he died on 13 November 1989 aged 97. We remember Jack O'Sullivan, the second last survivor, who died in 1986, Tim O'Connell in 1983, and my uncle, Pat O'Donovan died in 1981. While they were able, these men stood on this platform here at the annual commemoration.

According to the records that I consulted, there were three scouts on ambush location during the fight. Dan O'Driscoll, the last of these three scouts, died in 1967. So who was Scout AF who spoke to Peter Hart on 19 November 1989? Why will Peter Hart not reveal the names of the two men he says he interviewed, whom he has acknowledged in his sources as having participated in the Kilmichael ambush? If he revealed the names, then the credibility of these two witnesses who claim to give a first-hand account could be examined. Their version of events given to Peter Hart contradicts so many others. And while Peter Hart fails to reveal the identity of his anonymous sources, the story of the Kilmichael ambush will remain clouded in controversy.

This is extremely important for history and for the men who fought in the 3rd West Cork Brigade. Peter Hart has claimed that Barry and his men killed prisoners on that day. But the Auxiliaries engaged in a false surrender, therefore they were not prisoners. By using guns after calling a surrender, they had resumed the fight. Therefore, as soldiers had to accept the consequences. Barry took up the challenge and the ambush was then fought to its conclusion.

In this locality and countywide it was known in 1920 that there was a false surrender here at Kilmichael on that day.

Brigadier General Crozier, Commander of the Auxiliary forces in Ireland in 1920-21 acknowledged that there was a false surrender. Even Lionel Curtis, Imperial activist and advisor to Lloyd George accepted the false surrender in his writings in 1921. Stephen O'Neill, Section Commander, (across the road there.) during the ambush, wrote about the false surrender. There are other records to back up the false surrender story - many I could name, including my own uncle, Pat O'Donovan in Section 2 who was annoyed and upset about the false surrender because comrades were killed due to this deceitful action.

These Auxiliaries were commissioned officers with war experience and many had been decorated, so they knew the rules of war. They knew when to fire and when not to; they knew that when they shouted, "we surrender" it meant exactly that - a surrender - a cease-fire.

It is also important to state that the British cabinet accepted that this ambush at Kilmichael was “a military operation”. British Prime Minister, Lloyd George sent over his chief Secretary for Ireland, because, he said this engagement was “different in character from the preceding operations.” So if the British Government accepted it as a military operation, then any solders who shouted “we surrender” should have accepted that code of war, and not broken their word.

The British administration compounded the issue when they wrote their official report on the ambush, which is now known to be a propaganda document. So also was the unsigned typewritten report that Barry was alleged to have written after the ambush.

Barry's View on Partition

In conclusion: When Tom Barry stood on this platform in 1970, he told his listeners that “the ending of partition is the responsibility of not alone of the people of Ireland, but of every Irishman wherever he may be. The objective is the same as 50 years ago. ”

In an interview I had with him in 1979 he said that “the nationalist in the northern part of our country are fighting for the same objectives as the men of 1916 and - as we were.” That is over twenty years ago. He could not understand at that time, why negotiations were not more progressive. He couldn't see why citizens in that part of Ireland would not be happy in a United Ireland. His wish was for peace and unity on this island.

Barry and the surviving men who fought in his Flying column continued, while it was possible for them, to return to this spot - often on their own or in the company of others. It was almost a place of pilgrimage for them. They made great sacrifices to give us the freedom we have today and they deserve to be remembered.

save preference

Comments (21 of 21)

Jump To Comment:

audio

by imc éire

Mon Nov 29, 2004 15:41

download Meda's talk given in the Pearse Institute earlier this year - click at the related link below.

Pat Donovan

by Michael Hennigan

Mon Nov 29, 2004 17:43

More important than Hart's claims about Kilmichael which do not appear to be supported with credible evidence, the behaviour of both sides of the Civil War, was inexcusable, just two to three years later.

When I was in school, I met Pat Donovan (Meda Ryan's uncle and a family relation of mine) who was on the Anti-Treaty side during the Civil War. It was at a 'station' in Nedineagh, Dunmanway ( where mass was said in a house, followed by a beanfeast) and I injudiciously repeated an old rumour that De Valera was seen in a woman's black hooded cloak near Béal na mBláth, on the day Michael Collins was murdered. Pat wasn't impressed with my version of history!

Michael Collins

by Constance

Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:57

Michael Collins was not murdered. He was killed in action in a legitimate and very successful ambush by Óglaigh na hÉireann. Up the Republic!

Irish Daily Newspaper covers Meda Ryan speech

Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:39

29/11/04 Irish Examiner

Author challenged to name sources for ambush claims
By Eoin English

AN AUTHOR was challenged yesterday to name his sources and end decades of controversy surrounding an IRA ambush in West Cork.

Historian and author Meda Ryan called on Peter Hart to name two men he says he interviewed which led to his claims that Tom Barry’s account of the 1920 Kilmichael ambush was “riddled with lies and evasions”.

Ms Ryan was speaking in Kilmichael during ceremonies to mark the 84th anniversary of the ambush.

“While Peter Hart fails to reveal the identity of his anonymous sources, the story of the Kilmichael ambush will remain clouded in controversy.

“This is extremely important for history and for the men who fought with the third West Cork Brigade. “If he revealed the names, then the credibility of these two witnesses who claim to give a first-hand account could be examined,” she said.

Barry, commanding officer of the third West Cork Brigade, led the IRA unit in an ambush against Macroom Castle-based Auxiliaries on November 28, 1920.

It was the first major ambush against British forces in Ireland.

Eye witnesses said some Auxiliaries shouted “surrender” and dropped their guns soon after the ambush began.

As Barry’s men stood thinking the exchange was over, some Auxiliaries picked up their guns and began to fire again, killing three volunteers.

Realising the “false surrender”, Barry then issued an order to his men to open fire, killing all but two of the Auxiliaries.

He accepted full responsibility for the action, Ms Ryan said. Peter Hart, who was attached to Queens University Belfast but who now lives in Newfoundland, claimed in 1998 that Barry and his men killed prisoners, and that he refused to accept the false surrender.

But Ms Ryan, whose uncle Pat O’Donovan was involved in the ambush, reiterated the widely-held view that the Auxiliaries engaged in a false surrender.

English Sunday newspaper [sore losers!] deride Meda Ryan speech

by Robert Murdoch

Tue Nov 30, 2004 17:20

by Robert Murdoch Tuesday, Nov 30 2004, 3:41pm

Times Online November 28, 2004

Comment: Sue Denham

There are still those unwilling to accept that Tom Barry, an IRA leader, massacred 17 auxiliary policemen in the infamous Kilmichael ambush of 1920. Some of them will be at a ceremony “marking” the 84th anniversary of the bloodshed today at the site.

The guest speaker “chosen by the Kilmichael and Crossbarry Commemoration Committee” will be Meda Ryan, whose recent and sympathetic book on Barry has cheered up republicans no end.

Crows the committee: “The choice of Ryan is timely, as she possesses the research findings to refute the unfounded allegations of revisionist historians relating to a false surrender by the auxiliaries and false accusations regarding the manner in which Barry and his comrades conducted the ambush.”

Maybe it’ll rain.

[Note: it did not rain and over 1,500 attended: reputedly the biggest turnout in years. Thank you Rupert Murdoch.]

BBC report of dispute on the web

by Lord Reith

Tue Nov 30, 2004 18:36

'War of words' over battle

By Diarmaid Fleming BBC Northern Ireland

Sunday sees the 84th anniversary of one of the bloodiest battles in Ireland's War of Independence.

But it will be taking place amid intense debate among historians over recent research by a former Queen's University, Belfast, academic alleging that an IRA leader had surrendered soldiers shot in cold blood.

Now, another expert says he has found new evidence of a British propaganda "spin" operation which discredits all official British accounts of the time.

For nationalists, the ambush at Kilmichael in County Cork, was seen as a turning point in their fight against British rule, which was to lead eventually to the foundation of the Irish State in 1921.

Seventeen auxiliary officers and First World War veterans died in the ambush by an IRA flying column led by Tom Barry.

Three IRA men also died - two of them shot, according to Barry, after they stood up to take the surrender of a group of auxiliaries.

Speaking on film before his death in 1980, Barry said: "The Auxies opened fire immediately (on the IRA men) and they killed them with revolver fire after surrendering.

"I shouted at the same time to the Section 'Keep firing and don't stop until I tell ye'. They tried to surrender again and I said 'Don't take any surrender'.

"We wouldn't take prisoners after their false surrender and after killing two of our men."

But Barry's account has been challenged by Canadian historian, Dr Peter Hart, in his book The IRA and its Enemies.

British fury over the ambush was reflected in newspaper articles which wrote false reports of the mutilation of the bodies with axes of those killed at Kilmichael

He says the notion of a "false surrender" was made up to excuse the execution of defeated auxiliaries in cold blood.

As well as presenting a report allegedly made by Barry to his IRA commanders - which some historians dispute as a British forgery - he cites seven unpublished accounts, including two from anonymous witnesses he interviewed.

"Seven accounts by eye witnesses, two of whom were interviewed by me, say there was no false surrender. Either they explicitly deny it or they make no mention of it at all in their accounts.

"So I think there is an enormous preponderance of evidence giving accounts of the ambush radically different from Tom Barry's," says the former Queen's University academic and now associate professor of history at the Memorial University of Newfoundland.

British fury over the ambush was reflected in newspaper articles which wrote false reports of the mutilation of the bodies with axes of those killed at Kilmichael.

The ambush intensified the war in Cork: Martial Law was declared on 11 December 1920 citing the mutilations, and on the same night the centre of Cork was sacked by British forces.

But new research by another historian, Dr Brian Murphy, reveals that fictitious "official" accounts were run from a British propaganda office.

It was established in August 1920, just three months before Kilmichael, headed by British army Major CJC Street in London, and former journalist Basil Clarke in Dublin, to counter propaganda from the underground Irish parliament Dail Eireann publication Irish Bulletin.

"Basil Clarke said we must engage in propaganda by news rather than propaganda by views and he said we must do this in accordance with truth and verisimilitude, that is the air of being true but not strictly true," says Dr Murphy.

"Major Street said that for propaganda to work it must be dissolved in some fluid which the patient will readily assimilate and official news is the best way of doing that."

In his book published before Dr Murphy's research, Dr Hart says that the British information on the ambush "seems to have been remarkably accurate" while Tom Barry's account was "riddled with lies and evasions".

He also cites a report captured by the British from Barry to his IRA commanders to back his analysis - a document which others say is a forgery.

Dr Hart - who's also finalising a new biography of Michael Collins - says he does not mind criticism, but feels that some of his critics are not open to debate

Dr Murphy says that because reports were labelled "Official", newspapers carried accounts, often false, which represented British "spin".

Any analysis of the time which relies on official British papers must take this into account, he says.

"To dismiss - as Dr Hart does - Barry's account as 'lies and evasions' I don't think is tenable.

"It must be now very close as to whether Peter Hart has to qualify his statement in the light of the fact that the hand of Basil Clarke was at work in defining what happened at Kilmichael," says Dr Murphy.

But Dr Hart disagrees: "My account is based on IRA witnesses, not on the British report. One of the points of my looking into Kilmichael was to examine the kind of stories and labels which came out of the event - both sides calling each other terrorists for example and to try and get to the truth behind it.

"The truth is, as I think the whole book shows, that really in many ways the two sides acted in much the same way whether in terms of propaganda or thinking or violence."

But Barry's biographer Meda Ryan - who recently published a book on the IRA leader - maintains that her interviews with the IRA leader and Kilmichael survivors, including her uncle who was beside one of the IRA men when he was shot, do not corroborate Dr Hart's analysis.

"Admittedly it was years later but it was so vivid in their minds," she says.

"This was a major event and if a major event occurs in somebody's life then they will remember it with stark reality. In fact they were really adamant about the 'false surrender'."

Dr Hart - who's also finalising a new biography of Michael Collins - says he does not mind criticism, but feels that some of his critics are not open to debate.

"The typical reaction of critics is not that I have some things wrong, but that I have everything wrong and that everything Tom Barry says has to be right.

"It's almost a kind of faith-based history, a pseudo-history rather than a real debate where people concede some things and put forward others or are sceptical about weak points and accept the strong points."

Very brave and couragous men

by rooster

Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:34

Tom Barry and thirty-six young Volunteers took on the dreaded Auxiliaries who were stationed in Macroom

36 against 17, blatant proof of a shoot to kill policy which exists within the republican movement, even 84 years ago!!!!

Yes

by Clever boy

Fri Dec 03, 2004 13:02

Yes rooster. Strangely in a war most soldiers operate on a shoot to kill policy. Perhaps you should be a general in an army. You could operate the army on a don't shoot anybody in a war policy. It's a pity you weren't a general during the 2nd world war. Ve vould all be speaking deutsch

Not that strange

by LT CDR COLIN MANSON

Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:48

So how come sin feinn, the political wing of the Irish Republican ARMY has been bleating on for years about "shoot to kill" policies that the security forces were supposed to be operating?

Shooting, killing and 'bleating'

by NM

Sat Dec 04, 2004 14:04

The 'shoot to kill' controversy in the North of Ireland arose from a deliberate policy on the part of the 'security forces' (armed RUC militia, British Army SAS, etc) of shooting unarmed inividuals they claimed were IRA members - circumstances in which they also claimed there was no 'war' on.

Former Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester, John Stalker, wrote a very interesting book (‘Stalker’) on the subject, detailing his official investigation of the killings, and the successful attempt to throw him off the enquiry when he began to get to the truth of official cover-up of the matter.

Stalker gained the animus of the RUC by talking to solicitor Pat Finnucane, later shot down in his home by the UDA on the orders of the British secret service and RUC. An enquiry into that matter has been ongoing for a number of years (Stevens, 1, 2, 3, etc) and is still not concluded (the Canadian Judge Peter Corry, who carried out a preliminary official investigation, apologised last week to the Finnucane family for the British government’s delays). See (below) BBC reporter John Ware’s Panorama programme transcript – the recently convicted Ken Barret revealed that he was the UDA trigger-man on the Finnucane job and his 'security force' contacts.

John Ware door-stepped the British Army Brigadier in charge of the ‘Force Reconnaissance Unit’ in his house in Peking, but Brigadier Kerr, depicted in his early morning attire at the front door, was less than forthcoming about the Force's policy of collusion with unionist paramilitaries, through their UDA agent, Brian Nelson. Irish News columnist, Brian Feeney, makes the observation that the UDA is a creation of British counter-insurgency strategy (interestingly the policy adopted with unionist fanatics in Bandon in Cork during the War of Independence was probably a forerunner of this tactic)

Stalker makes the unremarkable comment on page one of his (Penguin) book that the British authorities adopt one of two policing strategies. There is the consensual style adopted within Britain and there is the ‘colonial’ style. In the north of Ireland, as in the rest of Ireland up to 1922, the colonial style of policing is used. This involves the occasional use of policies such as ‘shoot to kill’, or extra judicial killing, or war without its official declaration. In such circumstances the fig-leaf of civilised standards is proclaimed, as is the fiction of ordinary due process under the law. The ‘enemy’ are classed as “terrorists”, “criminals”, “blood thirsty savages”, “murderers”, and “irrational”, while those who oppose them are merely ‘the forces of law and order’.

The downside of this strategy is that appearance and reality seldom correspond. Hence the ‘bleating’ from civil rights organisations (Amnesty International, UN Human Rights Commission, the occasional policeman and judge, etc): a whole host of groups really that the Lt Cdr, possibly for reasons of concision, compresses into the single catch-all phrase: ‘sin fein’ (sic). The British policy is not one that can be defended in public, so public pressure (‘bleating’, etc) to get at the truth sometimes uncovers the nature of the activities of the secret state.

I hope that answers the point – some sources below.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/docs/panorama190602.htm
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/docs/panorama230602.htm

Television Documentaries - from CAIN (Univ of Ulster) website

BBC1 16/06/86 Panorama: Stalker, Concidence Or Conspiracy
- RUC / Loyalist collusion examined.

CH4 02/10/91 Dispatches: The Committee
- Sean McPhilemy's documentary about RUC and Loyalist collusion.

BBC1 08/06/92 Panorama: The Dirty War
- MI5 / UFF double agent Brian Nelson reviewed in collusion report.

ITV 11/03/93 Counterpoint:
- collusion examined and Loyalist links to MI5.

ITV 10/02/94 Counterpoint:
- Amnesty International view of RUC and loyalist collusion in murder.

BBC2 31/05/00 Brits: The Secret War (Part 3)
- Army collusion and Brian Nelson case profiled; Force Research Unit (FRU) techniques examined.

UTV 30/01/01 Insight: Licenced to Kill
- collusion in the 1980s; profile of the British Army's Force Reconnaissance Unit (FRU) involvement in murders during the 1980s, including Finucane, Hamill, and Nelson. (44 mins)

BBC1 19/06/02 Panorama: Licenced to Murder (Part 1):
- John Ware investigates collusion between the security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of Catholics. Ken Barett, formerly a member of the UFF, admits killing Pat Finucane. MI5 and RUC roles discussed. (50 mins) [See also transcript of programme]

BBC1 23/06/02 Panorama: Licenced to Murder (Part 2):
- John Ware profiles the security forces cover-up of their role in murders carried out by Loyalist paramilitaries. (50 mins) [See also transcript of programme]

Correction

Sat Dec 04, 2004 19:44

Brigadier Gordon Kerr's unit (that directed UDA killers) was the 'Force Research Unit'.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/docs/panorama190602.htm
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/docs/panorama230602.htm

Meda Ryan at Kilmichael Commemoration

by eeekkkk passing along

Sun Dec 05, 2004 22:26

contradicting yourself

Mon Dec 06, 2004 14:22

later shot down in his home by the UDA on the orders of the British secret service and RUC. An enquiry into that matter has been ongoing for a number of years

So, if the enquiry is ongoing, then how can you say that the ruc ordered his execution?

because

by Barry

Mon Dec 06, 2004 17:48

The scumbag who admitted killing Pat Finucane, Ken Barrett, told John Ware that RUC Special branch detectives told him to do it. Also there the wee detail that the scumbag who supplied the weapons, William Stobie, was also an RUC special branch agent. Mr Stobie was recently , and rather conveniently, murdered so theres not much chance of him being very helpful to any enquiry. At least not as helpful as he was to the to the RUC when they set up Pat Finucanes murder.

barry????

Sun Dec 12, 2004 17:35

scumbag who admitted killing Pat Finucane, Ken Barrett, told John Ware that RUC Special branch detectives

he's a scum bag for shooting finucane but he's a reliable witness when talking to John Ware??????

Tom Barry

by pierce M.

Sat May 21, 2005 17:01

pierce_mrtn at yahoo dot com

Meda Ryan's ad hominem approach to the Kilmichael attack only serves to obfuscate the terrible event.
However in her address at Kilmichael she unwittingly provides an insight into the mind of Tom Barry; refereing to his belief in the '700 years' of 'slavery' myth.
Barry had the psychological make up, the crude ideology, motivation, and the means to engage in slaughter; on the face of it one could be forgiven for believing that he did exactly that.
Meda Ryan should remember that Collins did not have a mandate to engage in a war in the name Ireland; neither did his anti-constitutional separatist comrades posses the right to represent the Irish polity: thus claiming the right to govern,
Sinn Fein secured less than 48% of the vote following the 1918 Election; no nationalist consensus existed upon which to base a sovereign mandate; no legtimacy existed to pursue a tactic of cold blooded killing of members of the R.I.C.-80% of whome were catholics.
Bearing in mind the climate of murder and mayhem created by I.R.A. killers from 1919- led by Collins and his minons like Barry-anything was possible.
The problem with the so-called ' War of Independence' lies in the fact that responsibility for fighting against it lay with the wrong people; Had John Redmond accepted Home Rule in May 1917: John Dillon, or earlier: Redmond himself would have had to crush violent separatism. In the event the 'tamed' nationalist separatist elite took on the job, schooled as they were like Barry in the art of murder.

Pierce Martin
Celbridge
Kildare.
Ireland

Freud examines Tom Barry and finds him WANTING

by hist 2

Thu Nov 24, 2005 21:24

Mr Martin's comments are not, unfortunately, very sensible, but do show some academic merit: he has evidently studied propaganda. One of the tactics used by British propaganda, especially, was to introduce the opposite of the truth as if it were a fact ("Meda Ryan's ad hominen attacks"). They were also very interested in psychology (" Barry had the psychological make up..."). As were Nazi propagandists, of course. Once you establish someone as psychologically deficient, you can say what you like about them, even when it's false. Especially so.

"The problem with the so-called ' War of Independence' lies in the fact that responsibility for fighting against it lay with the wrong people; Had John Redmond accepted Home Rule in May 1917: John Dillon, or earlier: Redmond himself would have had to crush violent separatism."

Ah! So violence wasn't the problem with the War of Independence. It was that the violence was directed against the wrong people. Fighting the machinery of government = bad. Fighting the morally inferior = good. What it is to have a colonised mind. It must feel so... safe.

the colonised mind or slave mentality

Thu Nov 24, 2005 21:59

Franz Fanon , a reputable psychiatrist IMO has a great deal to say about such characters as our friend from Kildare . Hes suffering from mental illness , poor chap .

hmm...

Fri Nov 25, 2005 00:07

I suppose that's another term for it. *grin*

It actually is

Fri Nov 25, 2005 00:41

According to Fanon formerly colonised people often encounter an innate need to "please" and imitate those who have occupied them , no matter how much this debases their own dignity as a people . Remember John Brutons over the top fawning speech to Prince Charles ?

" you personify everything we here in Ireland strive to be "

Its like mass Stockholm syndrome multiplied by 10

Mental . These west Brits are all mentalists . Once you understand this you realise how pointless it is arguing with the poor unfortunates , who need help and a good lie down .

Who trained Tom Barry in the phlílosophy of total war?

by Kevin Mannerings

Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:17

A gentleman from Kildare writes:

"Barry had the psychological make up, the crude ideology, motivation, and the means to engage in slaughter; on the face of it one could be forgiven for believing that he did exactly that."

The important thing to realise about Barry is that he was trained by the British Army. He was stationed in Mesopatamia, nowadays Iraq, in the city of Basra. He served from 1915 to 1919.

It seems to me, he learned and understood only too well the philosophy of total war. He was certainly officer material, it is a pity that neither Meda Ryan nor Peter Hart have thrown much light on the experiences he had as a volunteer in the British Army. It is interesting that Barry was often at pains to communicate to the British Officers in Cork, that he distinguished between those who engaged in torture and those who didn't.

The expression "psychological make up"
is slightly vague. His training in the British Army would have included a psychological component. Telling atrocity stories about the enemy in order to dehumanise them is part of it. Ironically, those who tried to turn the Kilmichael Ambush into an atrocity story about the shooting of unarmed soldiers who had surrendered, are writing about one of their own.

It would be nice if we could bury the philosophy of total war for good, the Lusitania monument in Cobh would be a suitable location, but as we know from what is happening in Iraq today, we are a long way from that.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Meda Ryan Speech at Kilmichael Commemoration (Nov 28 2004)

Comments (21 of 21)