Register to Comment
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68
Like Tree38Likes
  1. #41
    Roberto Jordan Roberto Jordan is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,580

    Quote Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
    Nonsense. In fact utter bullsh!t.

    The division was mostly based on the "haves" versus the "have-nots".
    Both have different objectives, and a different mentality.

    The "haves" wanted to keep their influence, power, privileges, status, wealth (however small).
    The "have nots" wanted to level the playing field and were motivated by different objectives.

    It was control versus ambition.
    Authority versus rebellion.
    Respectability versus revolt.
    I think that you are bought somewhat wrong.

    On the ground, especially in areas like Kerry & west cork which were not part of the ( relatively) large scale civil war fighting ( which occurred in Dublin and latter on the fractured front line of Limerick city, limerick county( where the closest thing Ireland has ever seen to modern open, battles ocurred after the fall of the city) and mid munster) the fighting was bitter because so little divided the combatants, they were known to each other and the fighting was small scale, small unit based on both sides.It was almost inter parish rivalry writ in blood.

    At a more senior level within the pre-treaty movement there was a more fundamental disagreement , though here again little other than personal affiliation of the minority of leaders who went pro treaty to collins & mulcahy was often at the heart of the decision of combatants either way.

    The divide referred to above in the earlier post was not one , in my view , that directly drove the combatants drawn from the pre-treaty movement.
    This is because any real 'haves" ( in terms of world view rather than just net worth or background) were on the periphery of the fighting. They were either found on the political fringes of the movement ( e.g. kevin o'higgins) or in the form of those bankrolling the "national army" or filling its ranks in the form of ex. B.A commissioned officers.

    the counter revolution got going in the vacuum created by the fighting, the latter having sucked in those committed to an independent different ireland. I am not one who subscribes to the lost leader or lost republic fantasy. But as per the above mentioned o'higgins and his sorry cabal the clongowes boys got their feet under the tables a hell of lot quicker thanks to the civil war than they would have otherwise.
    And the fuppers, their seed & breed , ilk , hangers-on and mimicers are still running the stinking place today.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #42
    Swords Hoopster Swords Hoopster is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    11,698

    Roberto, what do you think of John Durney's civil war casualties?

    They're unbelievably light IMO. I'd put them at twice his number.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #43
    JohnD66 JohnD66 is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,144

    Quote Originally Posted by Swords Hoopster View Post
    Roberto, what do you think of John Durney's civil war casualties?

    They're unbelievably light IMO. I'd put them at twice his number.
    Dorney.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #44
    DrNightdub DrNightdub is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    384
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Swords Hoopster View Post
    Roberto, what do you think of John Durney's civil war casualties?

    They're unbelievably light IMO. I'd put them at twice his number.
    On what basis though? For example, in the whole of the Civil War fighting in Donegal, I know of just under a dozen fatalities:
    - 4 FS soldiers in an ambush in Newtowncunningham on 4th May
    - 2 FS soldiers at an ambush at Drumkeen near Stranorlar on 11th July
    - 2 FS soldiers in a gun battle at Glenties on 27th July
    - 2 FS soldiers in an ambush at Sugnagillow on 31st July
    - 1 republican prisoner killed while attempting to escape from Drumboe on 11th December

    Then there was an FS soldier killed in a guardroom fight in Ballyshannon in mid-Jan 1923 but this was probably due to drunkenness rather than politics - my granda, who was an FS officer, subsequently put an ad in the local papers saying any pub found serving drink to soldiers in uniform would be fined.

    Plus 1 FS soldier killed at Creeslough on 10th March (probably not directly related to the Civil War) and the four men executed at Drumboe on 14th March as a reprisal for that killing.

    If you read the likes of The Summer Campaign in Kerry, what's striking is how casualties on either side were mainly incurred in ones and twos and that was the scene of extended guerilla warfare. I would say the bitterness of the Civil War was independent of the death rate, although things like the Kerry atrocities exacerbated it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #45
    Swords Hoopster Swords Hoopster is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    11,698

    I read the Donegal situation alright in Tom Glennon's book.

    I've argued against John Dourney that its very hard to believe that the Irregulars suffered less casualties than the Free State troops given the latter's superior firepower, especially artillery. It'd be interesting to hear your take on that. Eunan O'Halpin says CW casualties outnumbered AIW and Rising casualties combined.

    I'm also not sure that simply adding up lists of records of people killed at the time is sufficient, although it is the first thing you'd do. It doesn't give any scope for undocumented casualties, which in conflicts like this often number a good deal.

    What do you think DrNightclub?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #46
    JohnD66 JohnD66 is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,144

    Quote Originally Posted by Swords Hoopster View Post
    I read the Donegal situation alright in Tom Glennon's book.

    I've argued against John Dourney that its very hard to believe that the Irregulars suffered less casualties than the Free State troops given the latter's superior firepower, especially artillery. It'd be interesting to hear your take on that. Eunan O'Halpin says CW casualties outnumbered AIW and Rising casualties combined.

    I'm also not sure that simply adding up lists of records of people killed at the time is sufficient, although it is the first thing you'd do. It doesn't give any scope for undocumented casualties, which in conflicts like this often number a good deal.

    What do you think DrNightclub?
    Not the best at names are you?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #47
    Swords Hoopster Swords Hoopster is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    11,698

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD66 View Post
    Not the best at names are you?
    ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #48
    JohnD66 JohnD66 is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,144

    Quote Originally Posted by Swords Hoopster View Post
    ?
    It's not Durney or Dourney. It's John Dorney.

    Kieran Glennon wrote the book about his grandfather Tom Glennon.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #49
    Swords Hoopster Swords Hoopster is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    11,698

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD66 View Post
    Kieran Glennon wrote the book about his grandfather Tom Glennon.
    I know, I read it. (wtf?)

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD66 View Post
    It's not Durney or Dourney. It's John Dorney.
    I think there may be another historian Durney/Dorney I was getting mixed up with.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #50
    sgtharper sgtharper is offline
    sgtharper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,338

    Quote Originally Posted by Swords Hoopster View Post
    I do have a problem with John Dourney's casualty figures for the 16-23 period. His is an extremely good website but I'm not quite sure why so much faith must be put into the British Army's official casualty lists. For example, John's piece about Mount Street bridge takes the amount of killed directly from the BA's records. The BA (and indeed every army in the history of warfare) have a long history of playing down their own casualties and exaggerating their enemies. Its a natural occurrence but why take only one side's figure as gospel?
    Please give examples of "the BA having a long history of playing down their casualties" other that in time of an actual war?

    In reply to your earlier point there's a very good reason for having faith in the British Army's casualty lists, because they are demonstrably accurate, meticulously kept and easily checked. A casualty or fatality in a properly constituted and organised army such as the BA generates a mountain of paperwork entries and records all relatively easily checked and cross-checked. Unit War Diaries, After-action reports, casualty returns, incident reports, medical forms, hospital records, burial records,pay records, ration returns, medal entitlements, pension entitlements, posting records etc etc. I could go on but I hope by now you've got the picture?

    What's more, these people tend to have families, and friends. You can't simply "disappear" them, their injury or disappearance is likely to be noticed?

    Right throughout the Anglo-Irish war, the national press under control of the the Government, minimised crown forces casualties and totally fabricated those of the old IRA (the old IRA of course did the exact opposite).
    But that's not the Army, even if it's true.

    Why the assumption that the BA's casualty figures are unerringly accurate when history tells us that's rarely been the case?
    History shows you no such thing actually.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment