Talk:Irish Republican Army (1922–69)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

IRA & Operation Artur[edit]

That is why my grandpa went to the Bronx... Anyway, my grandfather and his 4 brothers were county kerry men. 2 were interned, and one was wounded. This does not seem like the appropriate place. After all. my grandfater was too young for any of it. He was 10 in '24 and 15 when he came to NY. But I guess is there a reason why they came to the states. Tiorcarh ar la! He was born in Tralee on 10 Dominic Street. If there is any Tralee men let me know............

Finally discovered what this is 'meant' to refer to. It is meant to refer to the plan drawn up by acting IRA Chief of Staff Stephen Hayes while Sean Russell was in USA. Hayes sent the plan to Germany carried by Stephen Carroll Held (BBC have him as "an IRA commander" here). Held arrived on 20 April 1940, and left on 23 April 1940 according to the Abwehr war diaries in Stephan. Anyone confirm Stephen Carroll Held status as an "IRA commander"? All the books have him as an unconnected-to the IRA, a Dublin business man.

On Helds arrival and delivery of the Hayes plan the Abwehr awarded it the codename of "Plan Kathleen" while The German Foreign Ministry later labeled it "Plan ArtuS". Both organisations instantly forgot about the thing as it was a joke- a 1 pager on how the Germans should invade NI supported by IRA operating out of Leitrim. Needless to say the rest of the details in the Operation Artur article are just as unsourced. It currently appears listed in the following articles/categories:

search query -> site:http://en.wikipedia.org "operation artur"

How should this be fixed? Change it to Operation Artus? The more infamous name is Plan Kathleen". A search on google for "Operation Artus" + IRA leads to 3 links on a anti-childporn sting operation.

At the same time its not accurate to label it a german operation of ww2, although I suppose it has to be called something. Here its called "Artus-Plan/Kathleen", the released british secret service archives here attribute the plan to Görtz and call it "Plan Kathleen", (Görtz wasn't even in Ireland at the time Held was sent over so his handwritten notes (if they are his) probably appeared after he was shown it in Germany by Abwehr handling Stephen Carrol Held).

I favour Plan Kathleen as the title of the article, but dont know if that means delete Operation Artur then have query for Operation Artur redirect to it?::Fluffy999 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done on sorting that one out. What you should do is propose that the page be moved, (see Wikipedia:Requested moves) and use the above to back up the request.
BTW, when you make an entry to a talk page, it's customary to do so at the end and not at the top.
Hoping this is not misconstrued as stalking, yours --Damac 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Got around to clearing up the Plan Kathleen article. Took care to list all the scenarios on what happened. My own view, probably hinted at in the article, is that the original IRA plan didnt have an airborne component, but the Germans (Görtz/Student), factored this in somehow in those 2 weeks before Görtz went to Ireland- Student, as a kickabout idea he later brought direct to Hitler, or Görtz (but he didnt mention it in his recollection). Since Hayes was wrapped up in it, the conspiracy theories are probably limitless, but since I dont have access to the plan, I guess its for someone else to clear up. Only a few more articles to go on IRA/WW2 then the section in this article can be rewritten in places. Fluffy999 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Made a new article IRA Abwehr World War II. Still have to cover the timeline up to 1943-1944, but the guts of the interesting operations/contacts with German intelligence are there. Enjoy. Fluffy999 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IRA illegal[edit]

In the article it says the IRA was declared illegal in the Free State in 1935. I had a hunt around in the archives but didnt find the actual bill/law/whatever saying they were proscribed.

From Carters book 'The Shamrock and the Swastika' she says they were declared illegal under what she called "Declaration of Unlawful Organization Order" supposedly passed June 18th, 1936

I'm wondering if thats legislation, something the president issued, Chief Justice etc. In this debate, June 18th, 1936, Acting Minister for Justice Boland 'says' they are illegal, but it doesnt appear they were debating a piece of legislation. How did this Unlawful organization order thing work?

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0062/D.0062.193606160024.html

Also, if you know when the IRA/PIRA was declared illegal in britain, and northern ireland then please reply. Thanks Fluffy999 08:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"On June 18, the day before Twomey's trial [19 June 1936], an Order was made by the Executive Council declaring the IRA an unlawful association under Article 2A [of the constitution]."[1]

Since the article reads " In 1935, De Valera banned the IRA after they fired shots at police during a strike of Tramway workers in Dublin" I put a cite on the article. Fluffy999 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WW2 - German Intelligence/IRA collaboration[edit]

I have problems with this section;

"In 1942, the IRA launched an armed campaign in Northern Ireland. It has also been claimed that during the war period IRA members may have attempted to aid the German aerial bombing of targets in Northern Ireland [citation needed]."

From my reading that all seems bogus? There are a few wiki entries alledging IRA/Abwehr operations, and a Northern Campaign 1942-1944. No idea where its coming from because I cant find it in the books on the period. see talk on article Operation Artur

Also does anyone know what Seamus (Jim) O'Donovan was up to before 1938?Fluffy999 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a Northern Campaign as far as I know. In this article, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh refers to a Northern Campaign. There are references to it in other sources, which I do not have to hand right now. --Damac 08:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I see it, will investigate in Bowyer book.

Fluffy999 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You were right! Bowyer Bell deals with the entire charade in a single chapter. The page reference given in the article above is wrong btw, and contrary to what RSF say, the "Northern Campaign" was not formally ended, just abandoned- December 1942. I did my best to write up the details for the Northern Campaign 1942- 1944. Was completely blank beforehand. Thanks for the tip! Fluffy999 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!
It is my understanding that one Patrick Fleming's first acts as IRA chief of staff was to formerly declare the end of the Sabotage and Northern campaigns on March 10, 1945. Of course they were abandoned much earlier, but it is important to note the official end date from the IRA's perspective.
The possible reason for the different page reference is that Bowyer Bell's book appeared in a number of editions.
BTW, glad to see that you don't think I'm wrong on all counts all of the time.--Damac 08:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Its statistically impossible to get it wrong all the time :) j/k. Unfortunately there is no mention of an official end to the Northern Campaign showing in Bell Bowyer- that reference is correct in so far as it ends the S-Plan/sabotage but thats all Bowyer says;
"One of Fleming’s first acts, on March 10, was to order a ceasefire with Great Britain, thus cancelling the 1939 IRA declaration of war."
I've gone through the relevant chapters a couple of times and I think its possible 3 things have happened:
  • Bell Bowyer neglected to mention the end of the Northern Campaign in the 1945 AC communique AND the text of proclamation the Northern Campaign was to begin which he says the AC debated on 15 August 1942.
  • Bowyer hints (in a round-about way) that the Fleming Army council of Feb 1945 didnt recognise the power shift to Belfast which McAteer presided over, and therefore didnt consider the 'northern campaign' as being a decision taken by an actual IRA Army Council, or at least one deserving lipservice. Before getting to the Feb 1945 announcement of the s-plan/sabotage campaign end Bowyer says:
"The last Army Council to be elected had been the one chosen by the 1938 Army Convention at the time of the Russell take-over."(my emphasis)
Implying that Fleming viewed any "non-elected" AC in the time period and their decision as illegtimate. He had enough egg on his face from involvement in the England Campaign 1939-1940 without associating himself with the Northern Campaign mess too. This also fits with the rush Dublin seemed to be in to get ops. back up and running on an official footing- elections, appointments etc.
  • Since Bowyer mentions no actual issuance of a proclamation about the northern campaign beginning, it could be that they didn't actually make one. The AC annual statement April 1943 doesn't reference it so far as its quoted, and the Northern Command AC seem to have made the first attack dependant on the execution of Tommy Williams on - 2 September 1942. Therefore, in 1945, Fleming wouldn't consider the signaling of an end to the northern campaign as necessary because a Northern Campaign wasn't announced. Fleming may also have assumed that Northern Command activity in the period was just 'the usual', this depends on him not having talked to CO. Eastern / Western OC. who moved the arms around.
  • Final case - Fleming considered the definition of "Britain" in his declaration to include the territory known as Northern Ireland thus squaring away every activity from 1939 onwards.
I will check to see if any IRA proclamations appeared around the timeline- its possible with wartime restrictions that an announcement was supressed though.
Fluffy999 10:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Found a proclamation in the papers of the period and updated the article. They called it a special manifesto. Not mentioned in Bowyer Bell for good reason- doesnt fit with the grand "Northern Campaign" billing he gave it (yes he is everso biased towards the IRA). RSF then having got the idea from Bowyer Bell to insert into their press release. All a storm in a teacup. Fluffy999 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Treaty[edit]

"but who are now often called the Anti-Treaty IRA to escape ambiguity"

By whom? I'm not aware of any widespread use of this name for the IRA from the mid-20s to the '69 split, which is the vast bulk of the period covered by this article. This appears to be an anachronism.

Fair point - I was going on what was already there when I reorganised the page. I'll remove that reference for now. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

added info[edit]

I've added a good deal of information to this, and some of it is taken from the articles on individual IRA personalities. For the rest of it, the comments I made on the original version of this that I put on the Irish Republican Army page apply: I'm not working in ideal circumstances and it could all bear with a thorough review.

I have taken out the Willie O'Dea quote because it seems anachronistic in an article about the IRA from 1922 to 1969. I've also rephrased the sentence in the intro that linked to it, for the same reason, but I'm still not happy about it - in my view it's unnecessary, that OnahE is the legal title of the PDF is alerady stated, and this comment is a bit irrelevant to the timeframe of the article.

I put in the remarks about German spies and bombing from one of the other articles in this series but I think it needs to be backed up with a source. Palmiro 21:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

edits to Civil War section[edit]

I added some more material to this, and also corrected some factual issues:

  • Collins was not Defence Minister of the Dail govt nor yet of the Provisional government, he was Finance Minister. In fact it was a cause of contention between him and Cathal Brugha that he used his position in the IRB to effectively usurp the latter's role as Defence Minister of the Dail government.
Ok, the Minister correction is valid, but it is not valid to remove the fact that he was IRA Chief of Staff. I'm reverting it. --Red King 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Collins was never IRA chief of staff. See List_of_IRA_Chiefs_of_Staff. The only pre-Treaty C/Ss were Brugha, Mulcahy and Eoin O'Duffy. Collins was however appointed Commander in Chief of the pro-Treaty National Army.--Damac 07:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I blame Michael Collins (movie) for my false memory syndrome! <sounds of humble pie being eaten>
  • There's some controversy over whose orders the IRA members who assassinated Henry Wilson was answering to; as far as I can recall they were from a Northern unit and it's been suggested that Collins originally set them in motion. I didn;t really follow this controversy so I can't be sure if there is now an agreed explanation.
  • There is no way Beal na mBlath can be described as an atrocity. It was simply an ambush in the course of an ongoing civil war. Ballyseedy Cross was undeniably an atrocity. If anyone can find records of Republican atrocities against Free State prisoners, then fire away. Palmiro 15:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure how your read it like that, but no matter. --Red King 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I noted above the question about whom the IRA members who assassinted Henry Wilson were loyal to. Can you please cite a recent source if you wish to include anti-treaty?
  • I'm not sure that all the Irish ex-servicemen were National Volunteers by any means nor that they were from Irish regiments. Can you provide details here on the talk page? For the moment, I've left out the info about the regiments which doesn;t seem particularly pertinent in any case, but left the reference to the NVs in position.
My big problem was the text that "British" ex-servicemen joined the National Army. That is completely warped logic. They were Irish ex-servicemen who were in the British Army during the Great War. To call them "British" in this context is at best disingenuous, intended to deceive the reader by being economical with the truth. I do know that former members of the Connaught Rangers moved to the National Army; it is reasonable to assume that other members of the Irish Regiment did likewise. Indeed, some units of the Rangers qualaified for War of Independence veterans pensions because of their mutiny in India. One of their number was the last member of Crown forces to be shot for mutiny. --Red King 19:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right; it was sloppiness on my part to leave it open to inference that the people involved were mainly British. I actually thought of this yesterday and was planning to change it, but you got there first!
I'm not sure at all about this, not knowing very much about the First World War, but I think that membership of the National Volunteers and of the Irish regiments was far from entirely overlapping.Palmiro 20:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The commission of atrocities by the Free State army is undisputed, and seems to have been associated with particular local commanders. cf Irish Civil War. Palmiro 16:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And vice versa. --Red King 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Section too long now[edit]

The extra material, although good work, seems to me to be too detailed for this overview. There is a full article about the Civil War, so I don't see the point of repeating so much of it here. 75% of it could go. --Red King 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. What I'm trying to do here is to give information on the anti-treaty IRA - the organisation that fought the civil war - how it fought and why it lost. I have more to add as well, especially on the neutrality of much of the IRA in 1922-23 and the IRA's post war activities. I would be happy, however to see the information on the course of the civil war deleted, as it is also on the civil war page.

Jdorney 12:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are best qualified to edit. --Red King 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

great article[edit]

Haven't been following the development of this article but it is amazing what can be written about an organisation that some people practically denied existed only a few weeks ago. Well done to all concerned. Hope to contribute to this in the near future. --Damac 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The ubiquitous split[edit]

I propose this article be split into at least two. Comments welcomed, and BYOB.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No objections?

Lapsed Pacifist 23:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. What would the basis be for the split? Who would go where, and which side would get the guns? And would the resulting feud be nasty? Palmiro | Talk 09:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bitterness is probably inevitable. The split would have to be a combination of politics and personalities, and the guns would be best divvied up according to need, although this will probably not happen. Originally, I planned to divide into Irish Republican Army (1922-1923) and Irish Republican Army (1923-1969), as the difference between the levels of membership, support and activity in the civil war and later indicated a natural break to me. I'm now leaning towards extending the former, perhaps up until Fianna Fáil's entry into the Dáil or government. To me this marks the point where the anti-Treatyites (or at least a critical mass of them, perhaps the majority) accept the Free State (however half-heartedly), and become part of the establishment. I'd welcome your input, and fervently hope our efforts will prevent further strife.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If this has to be done, I'd support Irish Republican Army (1922-1926) and Irish Republican Army (1926-1969). --Damac 16:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. 1926 is the logical break-point. --Red King 23:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No terribly strong objection to this from me either. Palmiro | Talk 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Links between EOKA & IRA[edit]

Anyone know exact how EOKA inspired the IRA? I have seen this inspiration referred to with regards to the Border Campaign (IRA). Some places it even says that EOKA "inspired the ira to start the border campaign" here.

Also it says in Seán Mac Stíofáin (who went back to ireland in 1959) article that IRA learnt guerilla techniques???? from Nikos Sampson- any details on what and part Mac Stíofáin was playing in the IRA then? Really its in reference to the border campaign- what were the links and inspirations? If its a myth, I do not want to continue it. Thanks in advance Fluffy999 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy, you shouldn't automatically assume that everything is a myth unless you've heard about it. Only a week ago, you were denying there was ever a Northern Campaign!
As regards the IRA/EOKA, it's anything far from a myth. I suggest you read through RSF's SAOIRSE (online). You'll find plenty of references to Cyprus there, especially in the "50 Years Ago" section, which is written by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, a major player in the IRA from the 1950s and since. The IRA drew considerable inspiration from the EOKA; indeed, this month's SAOIRSE prints a photo of Archbishop Makarios and reflects glowingly on the "struggle" there.
Seán Mac Stíofáin did not play a major role in the Border Campaign as he was locked up until 1959. However, the Felstead Raid was the first major IRA operation on British soil since the duldrum days of the 1940s and may be seen as the first indication that the "army" was slowing returning to life.--Damac 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I still dont believe there was a "Northern Campaign" :) Have yet to find some evidence of one being called. I try not to assume about anything because there is so much bullsh1t spread around about these things, not to mention black propaganda.
All the stuff about the "resurrection" 1945-1952 is already written but I'm tempted to say that this EOKA stuff is just dabblings. Best information I have is that Sampson was in Scrubs with Stephenson and a prison break was meant to take place. So IRA sent word to EOKA who agreed that it was good idea, and IRA said THEY would even train selected EOKA sprung from prison if needed, but it all collapsed when all cypriots were moved. That was in 1957-1958 sometime and in 1959 EOKA did something in Greece so IRA terminated 'relationship' with them- accepted some deal in Greece or whatever.
I searched for EOKA @rsf.ie but didnt find anything, only the Makarios, but in archive there is this PDF issue from Nov 2005 here talking about EOKA IRA 1950 "ideological links", but the 'links' are they also attack british army. That is why the links with EOKA / Mau Mau and not FLN for example. Maybe IRA did think something inspirational from their attacks and general disintegration of the commonwealth/empire but I think from article that it would be from all movements, not just EOKA. Looks like they mustve thought better of it. I will make it a footnote.
Here is deal EOKA did:
"The EOKA aim to rid Cyprus of British rule was met when on 16 August 1960 Cyprus achieved independence from the United Kingdom. However, the settlement explicitly denied 'enosis' - the union with Greece sought by EOKA" Fluffy999 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the EOKA provided more in terms of inspiration than material support for the IRA. The two organisations saw themselves as fighting the same kind of struggle and enemy. Friendships wer formed (Nikos Sampson was either at or sent a wreath to Mac Stiofáin's funeral, can't recall off the top of my head; SAOIRSE ocassionally carries obituaries for Cypriot Greeks, etc.).
You might be interested to know that Dr Ruan O'Donnell of University of Limerick is writing a history of the Border Campaign. I'm sure all our questions will be answered in that in due course.
As regards the "Northern Campaign". Wikipedia distunguishes between the actual name of events and phenomena and the name they are most commonly referred to. You are right: there was no Northern Campaign officially but in the circles that still talk of the IRA in those years and its activities (i.e. Republicans), it has become the "Northern Campaign". It is a useful label as no other term exists. It's the same thing with the Border Campaign. Officially, the IRA called it Operation Harvester but it is now only referred to as the Border Campaign by all commentators. Damac 09:03, 9 May 2006

Decommisioning[edit]

"The Provisional IRA embarked on a thirty year armed campaign against the British presence in Northern Ireland that claimed over 1,700 lives.[6] In 1997 it announced a ceasefire which effectively marked the end of its campaign. In 2005 it formally announced the end of its campaign and destroyed much of its weaponry under international supervision. The organization's political wing, Sinn Fein is a growing electoral force in both Northern Ireland and the Republic."

This is inaccurate, the IRA is not believed to have destroyed much of their weaponry, they destroyed or handed in a relatively small number of mostly obsolete arms. This was done in two batchs viewed by Gen De Chasterlain. They are believed to still be holding the bulk of their arms in catches on both sides of the border. This is generally excused by the term "putting weapons beyond use" in the wording of the good Friday agreement, viewed by the Unionists as handing in of IRA weapons and by the IRA as putting them back in storage. Also please note the members of the IRA arrested in Spain recently for tobacco smuggling, thought to be the IRA's current major money earner, very much still an active organisation though more on the organised crime front.

Hello, I updated all the PIRA IICD/IMC stuff here Provisional IRA arms importation. Also summarized the main points in PIRA. I'd update the same information to this article but its would eat up space for other things. The Feb 2006 accusation by unnamed MI5/RUC sources of the PIRA not having completely decommissionied are dealt with by referencing the latest (10th) report of the IMC, unless there are new accusations of them still having guns etc? They probably do have but its wikipedia so cited sources are needed :(
10th Report of the IMC, April 2006. Page 15. Available here
Fluffy999 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Forgot, also updated the IICD article. It probably is worth reporting accusations/whatever there, so if you have any details please update or post me a link. Thanks. Fluffy999 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject IRA?[edit]

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. NonFreeImageRemoved.svgErin Go Bragh 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of support from 1922 not 1930s[edit]

"By the late 1930s at the latest, most Irish people disagreed with the residual Irish Republican Army's claims that it remained the legitimate 'army of the Republic'."

Actually most Irish people had continuously rejected their claim from the June 1922 election onwards. Arguably from the 1921 Truce, but certainly from 1922. Non-specialists should note that students of this area of history tend to over-emphasise the importance of what the IRA tried to do in 1923-69. De Valera tolerated them in 1932-35, partly to bring them out into the open, and then pounced on them as they were trying to steal his best lines.86.42.199.200 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we can make such a sweeping statement as we can't possibly have proper evidence of what was in people's minds when they voted. Many IRA members (or their close family) will have voted for parties which didn't have an overt IRA stance as they understood that you needed people to govern - the question then is at what point does partaking in such a process mean that you accept the 'legitimacy' in all spheres of life of those elected. I would contend that people can 'comply' with a political system while still holding that the system is fundamentally illegitimate - this sly compliance is quite common in unusual political situations, for example during the second world war, civil servants remained at their posts during German occupation. This didn't mean they accepted the legitimacy of the German occupation but that they felt they could work within (and often at the same time) without the political order which actually was in existence. As for De Valera and Fianna Fáil, many of those who voted for them did so in the belief that they were voting for an IRA proxy party (this is borne out by Tim Pat Coogan's book on the IRA) and were surprised when it eventually moved against the IRA. Voting patterns in the 1920s also show that the Government was deeply unpopular and would have found it very hard to 'govern' (if not impossible) if the anti-treaty side had actually been in the Dáil, that they weren't there clearly allowed the pro-treaty side to set the Freestate on a sound basis, and lead many republicans to see that abstentionism wasn't working - however voting to send people into the Dáil didn't mean that they actually accepted that the Freestate was legitimate or that they wanted it to exist, it rather suggests that they were sick and tired of laws passed which made life hard for them and which, if they had been in the Dáil, they could have stopped. I'm sure that many of them (and many of the Fianna Fáil members who eventually went into the Dáil) would rather have had an 'anti-treaty' Dáil take over an control the country rather than working within the political structures of the state but they just couldn't manage to build that organisation up and so had to work within what was available to them - while hating doing so.EoinBach (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Is there some reason, other than WP:OR that this article is without citations to support the claims?Malke2010 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Name[edit]

As it has been agreed by concensus here [[1]] that the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is legally the title of the Irish Defence Forces in Irish, it cannot be used by the IRA. I shall revert the information again and if you still disagree with the concensus I suggest we ask for an RfC or Dispute Resolution. This is not an 1RR violation on my part. I am taking the concensus from another article on the Wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to is irrelevant to this article since it doesn't mention it, and it doesn't discuss removing the official name from any article, so I really don't understand what your talking about when you say consensus. The lead has been stable for a while now so would editors please discuss their bold changes having being reverted rather than attempting to force them through against consensus.--Domer48'fenian' 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

IRA/PIRA split[edit]

If I am reading this article correctly, it appears that the IRA was re-formed from it's earlier Republican basis of the 1950s as something somewhat different and much more Marxist in outlook. But then the PIRA split off, following the original Republican thinking. Is that basically correct?

If so, what, if any, continuity was there between the 1950s and 1960s IRA? Did the PIRA really "split off" from this organization, or was it simply created from scratch by an unrelated group of people?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're reading the article correctly. There was absolute continuity between the 1950's and 1960's IRA with campaigns in both eras. PIRA did "split off" in a fairly dramatic way. The "Official" IRA was very left leaning at the time of the split but the new PIRA also had socialist ideology. The new grouping certainly claimed to be following the ideology of the original IRA of 1919. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Bowyer Bell, J the Secret Army. The IRA. Page 126