Talk:Irish War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Added images

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

[edit] 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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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... Pigman 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, both are now fixed, as is the Hopkinson reference. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)