Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)

Page One

This page speaks to the fundamental creatiion of the IRA and its various entities. What, if any, link is there between the IRA's political stance and the historical split between catholisism and protestants.

Question: In the Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army node, the PIRA is described as having been founded in the 1960's.

But the IRA was founded in 1919. It conducted and arguably won a guerrilla war resulting in the formation of the Irish Free State. Now what I don't know is the relationship between this, if you will, "historical" IRA and the PIRA as described in its wiki node. Perhaps this is an ambiguity that should be cleared up some. I for one am somewhat confused by the PIRA node.

The PIRA were a breakway from what was termed the "Old IRA" - a split that occurred due to differences in views about the justifiability of violence. John Lynch

I updated the PIRA node (and a few related ones) somewhat, with a note on the provisional/official split in both the political and military "wings". I'll leave the analysis of modern Irish and Northern Irish Parties to someone else.

Paul

How do the INLA fit into all this? They are another Provisional IRA split, I believe

I have started a small piece on the INLA. I hope it will clear a bit of the confusion.

Another problem was that there was no such entity as the "Official" IRA before the dissidents broke away from the mainstream to form the Provisionals in the early 1970s.

Jimmerc

The IRA was literally what its name suggested, the Irish Republican Army , that is the army of the Irish Republic (1919-22). Though described as an army, it did not act as within normal military rules of engagement, was largely ununiformed and waged a guerrilla war. When the Irish Free State was established, a standard national army was created, which is now the army of the Republic of Ireland. That legitimate army's official name in gaelic is 'Oglaigh na hÉireann', a name a number of illegal republican splinter-groups (the PIRA, the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, etc) all claim illegally!

Most of the IRA (or 'Old IRA' as it is called - my grand-uncle was a member) joined the new national army in the early years of the Free State. The remnants, using the name IRA, continued on the fringes supporting the anti-Treaty movement under Eamon de Valera, after the civil war split of 1922-23. De Valera broke with anti-Treaty Sinn Féin in 1926 to form Fianna Fáill, perceiving Sinn Fein as irrelevant and stuck in a backward-looking timewarp. In power in 1932, deV released many IRA men from gaol. They then went around the country breaking up meeting of political opponents, with the slogan 'No Free Speech for Traitors'.

The IRA became increasingly a fringe organisation with minimal national support. Every generation, many of its brightest leaders left to enter mainstream politics. (Its chief of staff in the 1930s, Sean MacBride, left and became foreign minister of the Republic of Ireland (1948-51). Proncias de Rossa left Sinn Féin decades later and is now an Irish Member of the European Parliament and President of the Irish Labour Party!)

Because of the threat it posed to the security of the Irish State and its links with german nazis, de Valera as taoiseach executed IRA prisoners during World War II. It fought increasingly amateurish bursts of 'war', notably its Laurel and Hardy style border campaign of the late 1950s to early 1960s, which led to the introduction of internment of its members in the Republic of Ireland by Justice Minister Charles Haughey and Taoiseach Sean Lemass, himself an Old IRA man! By the mid 1960s, its leadership came increasingly to disregard traditional Irish nationalist-republicanism, moving to a marxist analysis of the 'Irish problem', centring on issues of 'class war' rather than 'republican war', as outlined in 'Án Phoblacht' and 'Republican News', both separate publications at the time, copies of which are available in the Linen Hall Library in Belfast. (I spent two months reading the all and charting the change from republicanism to marxism some years ago!)

The PIRA as a result was a more traditionalist republican breakaway from the marxist IRA. The term 'Official' and 'Provisional' (also 'Kevin Street' and Gardiner Street - I may be wrong with the last street name! - because of where in Dublin the various different Sinn Féins headquarters were located) became attached to both the IRAs and their political wings, Sinn Féin. The Official IRA officially disappeared in the mid 1970s, while Official Sinn Féin became Sinn Féin the Workers Party, then the Workers Party. The WP leadership bar one all left in the early 1990s to form Democratic Left, once it was discovered that the Official IRA still existed unofficially and, like its PIRA cousin, was linked to armed robberies and possibly killings in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. Democratic Left served in government in the Republic of Ireland (1994-97) before merging with the Irish Labour Party. (De Rossa is now party president of Labour, while new Labour leader Pat Rabbitte is a former SFWP/WP/DL member and TD. )

So, put simply, the PIRA is an off-shoot of the IRA, which was made up of leftovers from the 'Old IRA', the legitimate paramilitary army of the Irish Republic (1919-22). Most of the Old IRA joined the National Army of the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) when a proper, full time, miltarily organised, paid and legally created armed forces came into being. So the PIRA is really a breakaway off a breakaway of leftovers. Even among those people proud of the Old IRA (and many are not, though I am!), the PIRA is regarded as at best, grudging tolerance (given their role in the peace process). Many regard them as thieves who stole the name of a legitimate Old IRA and besmirched that name by murdering protestants, war veterans at the Enniskillen remembrance day service, burning people to death in a notorious bombing of a restaurant in the 1970s and blowing up children in the Warrington bomb. I hope this clarifies matters. JTD

There are two words highlighted in Wikipedia:Words to avoid - cult and terrorism. Despite this, it seems some bourgeois Phd studying self-described so-called "leftist" elements from the 26 counties that really don't care about rules and such and love to throw their POV around, calling the legitimate heirs of the First Dáil "terrorists". I urge people to respect Wikipedia standards such as Wikipedia:Words to avoid and stop trying to inject their POV into these discussions. -- Lancemurdoch 18:17, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A quick read of your contributions, and repeating claims about Sinn Féin being the "legitimate heirs of the First Dáil" shows your unambiguous agenda. This is an encyclopædia, not Án Phoblacht. Learn the difference. FearÉIREANN 19:24, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather get facts from a bourgeois nancy boy with a PhD rather than someone who learns history from listening to the Wolfe Tones Greatest Hits. And who uses words like Bourgeois anymore? Not another 60's tree-hugging hippy! Fergananim

Tactics, Training, Organisation

It seems to me that at the moment this wikipedia article is primarily a a discussion on the strategic development of the IRA. Are there any articles in on the training, tactics, and organisation, etc.

For example the flying columns:

why were they developed?
how many were there?
How were they organised and who was involved?
How and with what were they equipped?
How were they trained?
What did they do?
How did they gather intelligence?
Some examples of their operations, mundane, spectacularly successful, and spectacularly unsuccessful.

Or what was an active service unit

why were they developed?
how many were there?...

Also what was the structure of the IRA above the basic tactical unit? -- PBS 09:02, 7 Aug 2004

I rolled back 211.76.97.229's crazy edits. S/he obviously doesn't know that this an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a propaganda page for the IRA. And their 'historical' analysis would get an F Grade in the Junior Cert (a national exam in secondary school/High School - to any US readers who don't know about the workings of the Irish educational system). FearÉIREANN 17:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was some useful (and as far as I know factually accurate) information in those edits for the period between 1921 and 1968 or so, despite the glaringly obvious POV issues. If I get a chance, I might rework some of it.Palmiro 16:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Smaller groups

I'd appreciate it if someone in the know about the whole "Life of Brian"-eque splintering of armed groups could stop by Terrorism Act 2000 and see if we can resolve any of the redlinks in the "domestic" section. In particular, I'm concerned that some of the republican ones listed there might actually have articles, but aren't getting linked due to irish diacritics. -- John Fader 00:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oh, for example, is the Continuity Army Council the same as the Continuity IRA? (as List of militant organizations seems to say)? -- John Fader 00:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The Continuity IRA don't call themselves the Continuity IRA, they call themselves the IRA (the one thing which unites all these splinter groups is that they hate being called anything other than "the IRA"), under the leadership of the "Continuity Army Council". Everybody else calls them the Continuity IRA. --Ryano 12:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

How does the IRA differ from the way it was when it was first developed and now? Please speak plainly, I am researching this for a middle school project. All other information has been over my head.

The original Irish Republican Army that was first developed in the 1910s/1920s doesn't exist any more, but there are several distinct organizations which use related names and claim to be the successor of the original IRA. Most Irish people disagree with these claims however, and see the Irish Defence Forces as the successor of the 1920s IRA. Demiurge 10:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The IRAs name has been scorned by degenerate breakoff groups.The Provos are still committed to the cause.

The IRA

The IRA is a murder gang.

The IRA are the remnants of the true warriors of the Irish Republic who are still fully committed to the cause of a 32 county republic unlike a certain leader of Fianna Fail a party set up by some republicans committed to the cause and now its more interested in kissin up to England and USA

I can't stop laughing at the dillusions of the anonymous user who wrote the three line paragraph above. The main thing the so-called IRA are committed to today are robbing banks, importing drugs, intimidating opponents and murdering people who get in their way. FearÉIREANN 00:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another orangeman lickin up to the crown

FearEireann do you have any interest in a 32 county republic if not let me pose a question........ if you own an island would you not prefer to own it all instead of sharing it with people who throughout history have murdered and oppressed your people From Notorious POC i also wrote the three line paragraph you found so funny

What a laughably ignorant comment, clearly from someone who is to a knowledge of Irish history what Homer Simpson is to the Nobel Peace Prize.

If you knew anything about Irish history you would know that no-one has a right to own the island of Ireland. It is for the people on the island to decide its future. If you think slicing a young man's stomach open and cutting their throat outside a Belfast bar has anything to do with real republicanism you are living in cloud-cuckooland.
Having a 32 county republic will only come when all the people of island are agreed about. Thugs in the so-called IRA have put the cause of Irish unity back generations.
The people of Ireland, north and south, and made their views heard in election after election and the sort of views you seem to have have been rejected by the people of Ireland. Trying to force your will on a people that have said repeatedly 'no' is nothing short of fascism.
Do you, BTW, agree with Gerry Adams about the need for the IRA to move exclusively to democratic politics?
As to my commitment to the Republic, my family have been active in republican politics since the Fenians. Members of my family were senior in the actual Irish Republican Army, the army of the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 and confirmed in the First Dáil. And we have worked for Irish unity when gobshites in recent so-called IRAs have divided rather than united Ireland.

The fact that you did not have the guts to an actual account and talkpage here speaks volumes for your own credibility and honesty. FearÉIREANN 22:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When i spoke of owning the island of Ireland i meant the people of Ireland.Concerning your comment about that killing i am very against the murder of that man but i seem to remember the IRA taking action by expelling 3 members and offering to execute them(i'd rather see them rot in jail).On the subject of the comments made by Gerry Adams i feel the Provos will never truly disband i feel they may say they will but i feel the Army Council will remain intact until a 32 county republic is achieved.My view on the IRA is although it does have people who are pure scum in its ranks it also has people whos only interest is the achievement of a united Ireland hence the reason they have my support.I must commend your family for their work in helping the republican cause.By the way i have an account look for Notorious POC although if somebody didn't have one i don't see how that could raise questions about their honesty and credibility. --Notorious POC 18:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Notorious POC

One tip. Don't leave a space before the first line of a message (or any text anywhere on wikipedia). It means the text runs off the page. I've removed the space so that your paragraph can be read. Sorry if my comments about your account sounded harsh. We do have people who come on, don't sign comments and abuse named users. Obviously that does not apply in your case. On wikipedia I've been variously described as a west brit, a provo, a bigoted catholic, anti-catholic, a monarchist, a republican, a homophobe (particularly ironic as I am gay!), etc etc. My only concern is objective facts. I am passionate in my determination to defend objective facts and avoid propaganda, whether pro-British propaganda, pro-IRA propaganda, or anything else. Equally I have edited out POV attacks on the IRA, on unionists, on the SDLP, etc. If something is objectively verified in an article I will defend it even if it runs completely contrary to my personal viewpoint.

Personally I am passionately in favour of a united Ireland, which is why I am opposed to the modern IRA. I believe their campaign has backfired spectacularly and made Irish unity less, not more likely. In any case census returns suggest that a united Ireland is not on the cards in the forseeable future. While there is near parity between the Catholic and Protestant populations in the North, poll evidence has consistently shown that about 1/3 of Catholics are pro- the status quo, ie, the union, viewing the appeal of the UK and its funding in Northern Ireland as stronger than the appeal of the Republic, which even with the celtic tiger would be less able to fund the services currently provided for Northern Ireland. Data suggests they believe a united Ireland would lead to a decline in funding for schools, hospitals, roads, etc.

Hard data suggests that real support for a united Ireland however between 31-35%. One of the puzzles of the peace process is Sinn Féin's belief that the Belfast Agreement will make unity more likely. I don't see how. Peace processes internationally tend to increase, not decrease, acceptance of the status quo, because people tend to think 'everything is fine this way. Why risk it by changing it to something new'. If the Agreement creates meaningful symbols for the nationalist community in Northern Ireland within Northern Ireland, it would seem that the current relationships between the UK, NI and the RoI are likely to be steadied rather than pushed to change. Much as though I would like to see Irish unity, I don't see it coming about, not in the way it is traditionally imagined. FearÉIREANN 22:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would like to say i appreciate your comments and understand where your coming from.I'm starting to see sense in what your saying and it looks like i'm finally resigned to the view of a seperated Ireland(but i can still dream)--Notorious POC 22:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Notorious POC

The IRA was handily defeated by a combination of British special forces and Loyalist self-defence units by 1994.

terrorist organisation

Question: Is there a reason why the word 'terrorist' isn't used at all in this entire article?

(Sorry to cut in someone elses post, but wanted to keep it grouped together): I totally second that question! The IRA are a terrorist organisation.

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of families out there who'd like to know when the IRA ceased being 'terrorists' and became 'paramilitary'.

par·a·mil·i·tar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-ml-tr) adj. Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I think it's time the word 'paramilitary' is removed and replaced with the word terrorist, as they're definately not assisting regular army troops and they have definately been using terror tactics to influence political objectives.

Jachin 5:29 26/05/2005 (AEST)

You can "sign" you articles with ~~~~ which will automatically put your userid and time stamp your talk page contribution

I am going to revert your changes because you are including the IRA who fought Anglo-Irish War. The definition you have given for terrorism is one of many. That particular one would include every rebellion in history as a terrorist organisation, which I do not think brings clarity to this or any other Wikipedia article Philip Baird Shearer 09:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would not object to the term being applied to the CIRA, PIRA etc? --194.125.111.194 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC

)

Once one enters the area of British Irish relations one enters a Alice through the Loogking glass world where things are much more complicated than they at first appear. The problem one has of applying terrorist to the PIRA and not the IRA; is what differentiates the IRA from the PRIA other than the passage of time and that the IRA won the Anglo-Irish War (although of course those who fought in the (anti-treaty) IRA during the Irish Civil War did not think that they had won)? Does Wikipedia follow the Irish Freestaters and say that those who fought in the IRA and accepted the treaty are not terrorists, but those who did not accept the treaty are terrorists? In which case we are making the assertion of terrorism based on political convenience and not moral grounds, because if one reads the debate which took place in the Dail on whether to accept the treaty or not, there is a lot of debate about the oath of allegiance to the crown as required by the treaty (which was unacceptable to those who wanted to fight on), and there is also the point made by Ulster republicans that their people were being sacrificed for an accommodation between Britain and the other three provences, although suprisingly (to me) this point was on the periphery of the debate. Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the IRA and similar organisations are usually termed "paramilitaries" by the media and academics here in Ireland and indeed in the UK. There may be a strict dictionary definition of "terrorism" that the IRA conforms to, but it's impossible to get around the fact that "terrorism" is seen as a POV term. This is largely because it is not applied across the board, for example state actors employing similar tactics would generally not be called terrorists, and neither would paramilitaries involved in successful or "popular" campaigns, e.g. the French Resistance.

I have no problem with the IRA being termed terrorists, as they clearly are. However, there is too much political baggage associated with the term for it to qualify as NPOV --Ryano 13:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no difference between the IRA, Al Qaida the Palestinian terrorists, Israeli terrorists, or any other group of terrorists. Whilst they are freedom fighters in their own eyes and terrorists to their enemies, all the people like myself standing on the sidelines generally agree that they ARE in fact terrorists as they're indescriminant with their attacks and are using fear and attacks on civillians to argue their case.

I'm guessing most of the people on this post would be part of that 'us and them' scenario, my mother is Irish and Catholic, my father was English and Anglican, I live in Australia and don't particularly give a rats arse either way. But I definately think it's folly and doing the Wikipedia project no justice by pulling punches and claiming that terrorists aren't terrorists.

This isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Whilst in the UK and Ireland they may refer to them as paramilitary, I'm sure that's simply political correctness gone mad. The second women and children (or if one follows the Geneva convention, 'civillians') get brought into a scrap between government and rebels, every dictionary would draw the line at deeming that terrorism, especially if colateral damage is inflicted specifically to hurt the opposition by making them feel unsafe (ergo, terror).

I'm positive the world hasn't forgotten that the most prominant killers of civillian men women and children to inflict terror on their enemy prior to the Septemper 11 attacks in the USA were the Irish Republican Army and it's countless spin off movements, although the media seem fixated on Al Qaeda as the only terrorist movement to exist anymore, it'd be wrong for history to be ruled by media sensationalism.

Jachin 13:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But would you accept that there's a problem whereby not every group who uses terrorist tactics will get called "terrorists"? I'm certainly not coming at this from a "them and us" scenario - as I've said I fully agree that the IRA are terrorists, I just don't think the term can be said to be NPOV --Ryano 14:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Geneva convetions do not apply to the last troubles. It was never recognised by the governments involved that it was an armed conflict. The rest of this missive is a ramble in the form of what if:

If it had been, then the paramilitaries would have been held as POWs not criminals if for example their offence was membership of the IRA. Even if it were to be claimed to be an armed conflict by a party to the troubles, there are also good legal arguments under international law that (before Protocol II (Article 13) for conflicts not of an international nature), that killing of enemy civilians in enemy held territory is not a war crime. There is the argument that Germans cities were bombed in World War II not just for the material damage done to the German war effort, but because the Allies wanted to make the German civilian population realise that wars had consequences for them as well as for the civilians in the countries they invaded, so the Allies of World War II thought that affecting enemy moral ("making them feel unsafe") was a valid war aim.

BTW Protocol II also mentions "Terrorism" but does not give a definition for what terrorism is: Article 4 "following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: ..." clause d "Acts of terrorism;". But as the troubles were not an armed conflict it does not apply .

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the IRA are (still are, until they go away) terrorists. But 'terrorist' is viewed by many people as POV, even those who agree that that is what they are. Paramilitary is a far better NPOV term to use. We should not judge any organisation through our use of words, but by outlining the evidence. It is better to use neutral language and list the evidence and allow the reader to decide, than tell them using a controversial word that will provoke edit wars and perhaps undermine the ability of the overall article to let the reader see the objective facts. Using terrorist in an encyclopedia is as a result unwise and potentially counter-productive. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 21:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Formatting

The use of nested bullet points in this article is untidy - anyone want to clean it up? More headings might (also) help. Ben Finn 18:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Munster

I have just replaced this new text:

The IRA was also involved in the destruction of many stately homes in Munster. These belonged to prominent Loyalists who were aiding the Crown forces, and were burnt to discourage the British policy of destroying the homes of Republicans, suspected and actual. As the mansions were worth a lot more than the cottages of the ordinary people, the British policy was discontinued. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.

With the original:

The IRA was also accused of excesses; in particular against the property of Loyalists in the Munster area. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.

Please provide a source for the new text before restoring it. Philip Baird Shearer 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about the topic if you see a problem with the paragraph. Among other places you'll find it in

David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish Life 1913-1921: Provincial Experiences of War and Revolution
Peter Hart, The IRA at War 1916-1923
F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine
John Rieder et al, Joseph Keene Chadwick: Interventions and Continuities in Irish and Gay Studies

It is not an issue of dispute among historians. The only problem was perhaps the way the paragraph was written but its basic facts are universally accepted as correct. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)