Peter Hart Digs A Bigger Hole

Friday August 05, 2005 16:50

by Jack Lane - Aubane Historical Society

In the current issue of History Ireland (July-August 2005) Peter Hart attempts to reply to three critical letters in the previous issue that challenged a number of specific points from his book on the IRA in West Cork during the War of Independence and in an interview in the previous edition of History Ireland.

He begins by caricaturing his critics, describing them as people who ` .. practice a kind of faith based or creationist history: faith in the purity of the IRA; creationism with regard to their politics'. None of his critics showed any evidence of faith-based or creationist history or any such childishness but had put straightforward questions that Hart has evaded for some time.

One of the letter writers, Manus O Riordan, is someone I happen to have known for a while (over 35 years) as a two nationist, which in itself is hardly evidence of a faith based approach to Irish history. O'Riordan has also publicly detailed his critical assessments of Tom Barry on specific aspects of his politics on a number of occasions. He has researched and made radical assessments of even bigger fish than Barry, namely James Connolly, pointing out that his actions in 1916 can only be fully understood on the basis of his support for a German victory in WW I. Again, hardly evidence of a faith based approach to history. I have had, do have, and no doubt will have disagreements with him but there is absolutely no doubt that his positions on these issues are based on thorough research with a ruthless respect for the truth of the conclusions he draws from that research. He is therefore, almost inevitably, one of the growing group of trenchant critics of Hart.

Dead man alive, live men dead but all deleted!

In his letter O Riordan concentrated on just one aspect of the many suspect aspects of Hart's prize exhibit, the report that he claims Barry wrote just after the ambush, and he asked Hart to explain why he had chosen to omit from his own reproduction of that "report" the sentence that immediately demonstrated its bogus character, i.e., the claim that only one volunteer ("P. Deasy" in a postscript) had been killed outright at Kilmichael and that two others died later. But it was the other way round. Deasy died of his wounds six hours later and half a mile away at Gortroe and the two others (Sullivan and McCarthy) were killed outright in the ambush. Could Barry not know who was dead and who was alive after the ambush? Could he have made such a mistake? Of course not, and Hart knows he could not, so he cuts it out of the report in his book. This is the question O'Riordan posed and what does Hart say about this crucial fact in response? Not a word, not a single word. Silence speaking volumes comes to mind.

Dead men talking and touring!

In her letter Meda Ryan asked Hart, yet again, to explain how he was able to interview participants in the ambush on dates after they had all died and she challenged him to name them. But Hart does not explain how he did this extraordinary feat (and how he had toured the ambush site with one of them). He presents a most curious extract from notes he made of an interview with one of them where "false" is conveniently inserted in brackets before the word "surrender" which is one way of establishing a false surrender!

Could we not have the full notes reproduced to clarify matters?

He will not name the interviewees because he promised not to, he says. So we have two of the famous Boys of Kilmichael who did not want their names known nearly 70 years after the event, nor for all eternity. Modest people indeed.

Maybe there is a simple explanation. People in West Cork can be kindly and generous and go in for a bit of mutual flattery with visitors and tell them what they want to hear. As they say down there about a certain type of person who comes their way, they saw him coming, and maybe Hart falls into that category.

Anyone who has listened to some local accounts of ambushes will know that they were really massive affairs and the only wonder is why the IRA did not use the occasions for fundraising by selling tickets for the events. Barry had this problem shortly after the Kilmichael ambush itself and had to get a number of participants to clear off at a commemorative event.

Meda Ryan demonstrated in her book that the killing of 13 Protestants in the Bandon/Dunmanway area happened because their names appeared on a list of local informers left behind by the Crown forces so they were killed as informers. And if Catholics had appeared on the list they would undoubtedly have met the same fate as indeed many Catholics already had for the same reason. Does Hart challenge this? No, he simply ignores these facts and refers again glibly to the massacre of Protestants.

Selective quotation

In his letter, Niall Meehan brought up, again, after first being raised by Brian Murphy in 1998, the misuse by Hart of the source material contained in the Record of the Rebellion in Ireland, 1920-1921. (Jeudwine Papers, Imperial War Museum). Hart has used this source to argue that 'men were shot because they were Protestants' and not because they were informers. The extract from the Record, chosen by Hart, reads: 'in the south the Protestants and those who supported the Government rarely gave much information because, except by chance, they had not got it to give.' If that was the case, then Hart's position would be almost made. However the next two sentences tell a completely different story. They say: 'an exception to this rule was in the Bandon area where there were many Protestant farmers who gave information. Although the Intelligence Officer of this area was exceptionally experienced and although the troops were most active it proved almost impossible to protect those brave men, many of whom were murdered while all the remainder suffered grave material loss.' These sentences destroy Harts case so he omits them! What does he say to Meehan about this? Not a word. Again, silence speaks volumes.

Omission equals admission

Hart again makes play of the fact that if the false surrender is not mentioned by somebody in an account of the Kilmichael ambush then that s evidence that they are saying it did not happen. That's like saying that everyone who ever sang "The Boys of Kilmichael" is therefore confirming that there was no false surrender as the song does not mention it. The fact is that the false surrender was a fact agreed by people on both sides and constant reference to it was therefore unnecessary. It was a banal fact for nearly 80 years. Indeed, if it were mentioned over and over again by all on every possible occasion there would be a justified suspicion that they might be protesting too much. For example, if I kept referring to where and when I am writing this there might be a justified suspicion of some sort of alibi being concocted. Hart tries to get Liam Deasy on his side by this tactic but it does not work. Deasy and Barry had a dispute about various aspects of the War: tactics; strategy: roles played by people; the capability of the IRA etc., and there was a political party edge to the dispute. But if Deasy thought that Barry (and many others) were downright liars he would hardly have summed Barry up as follows, saying that `[...] his distinguished service in the national cause became an inspiration, and as a guerrilla fighter his name became a household word throughout the country [...] He had proved himself an ideal Column Commander [...] He was a strict disciplinarian and a good strategist, but he was something greater still: he was a leader of unsurpassed bravery, who was in the thick of every fight and so oblivious of personal risk that his men felt it an honour to be able to follow him'.

Instead of replies - abuse and homilies

Instead of replies to the questions posed what we get is abuse of Meda Ryan that verges on the libellous: `her book is a catalogue of justification for killing'. Abuse which is clear evidence I would suggest that he has lost the argument. Also homilies about the awfulness of war and killings and fantastic, absurd analogies and comparisons between the actions of the IRA in the War of Independence and the American invasion of Iraq and their destruction of Fallujah and with the Balkan wars.

He refers to his `belief that people who take it upon themselves to kill others (the IRA was a self-selected volunteer forces after all) should be scrutinised very carefully indeed, and hence my amazement that people should object to this.' If that was the case they should not only be scrutinised they should be arrested, charged, tried for murder and sentenced.

We are told that the `IRA were not soldiers and what was happening in Ireland was not a war.' He ignores here, as he always does, the rather significant fact that the IRA was the army of the legitimately elected government set up on the basis of the 1918 election. The British government suppressed that government and the elected government defended itself. That is the fundamental fact, the basic cause and effect, of the War of Independence and it is the fact that Hart and all the other revisionists must determinedly ignore because if they don't their whole house of cards falls down. It's the huge elephant in their garden that must be ignored at all costs.

Lord, let me reply but not yet - again!

Another of Hart's standard responses is repeated: `I have not been able to tackle every issue the letter-writers brought up and I have a lot more to say about those I have discussed. If readers would like to read more, I am currently writing a brief book on all this in answer to the three books (!) that have appeared so far denouncing me.' I wonder will a brief book be sufficient seeing as he not yet refuted any, but simply ignored all of, the essential questions put to him so far. Maybe he realises, as anyone would who reads this article of his, that he is digging himself into a hole and his only choice is to dig away as slowly as possible and hope that people will ignore him and tire of the issues involved. However, that does not seem likely if the response to his original interview is anything to go by.

Jack Lane

Indymedia Ireland Archive Of Coverage Of This Dispute

Hart Article in History ireland: July/August 2005 0.98 Mb