Current Affairs History Reviews Television

Truth Is The First Casualty Of War

Cecil O'Donovan, age 18, and his brother Aidan, age 14, murdered by the Royal Irish Constabulary, 20.02.1921
Cecil O’Donovan, age 18, and his brother Aidan, age 14, murdered by the Royal Irish Constabulary, 20.02.1921

Last Monday I watched the second part of TV3’s drama-documentary series, “In the Name of the Republic”, where once again Eunan O’Halpin claimed to offer an analysis of the alleged actions of the Irish Republican Army during the Revolution of 1916-1923. Despite a few days of thinking it over and trying to see some historical value in the whole exercise it is hard to escape the impression that the programme (like the one before it) was anything other than some weirdly anachronistic anti-Irish Republican propaganda film. If fact it could have come straight from the film archives of the British Imperial War Museum, stamped 1921.

Stripped of the shallow pretence of balance it was obvious that the documentary makers had set out to “prove” that the men and women who fought to defend Irish democracy at the start of the 20th century were simply “terrorists” and “murderers” lacking in any sort of electoral mandate or support. In fact, going further, the programme all but justified British colonial rule in Ireland by taking the point of view of the country’s British paramilitary police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, the British judicial system, the British Occupation Forces and individual members of the Irish population who actively supported or collaborated with British rule.

I suppose if the Revisionist fringe of academia in the southern United States can produce books and movies to “prove” that the Confederacy was actually a paragon of democracy and morality with hundreds of thousands of happy-go-lucky slaves then why not a “reform” of Colonial Ireland? What is it that the Neo-Confederates in the United States now demand as the proper title of the internecine conflict that scarred the nation during the mid-1800s? It’s no longer the American Civil War, it’s now the War Between the States. Or should that be the War of Northern Aggression?

So what’s next for our own Irish Revisionist tendency? Will the Irish War of Independence become the War of Irish Aggression? Some Neo-Unionists in Ireland are already half-way there with their favoured meme of the moment: the Irish Terror. Not as in the Irish being terrorized by their then colonial rulers from Britain.  Oh no. It’s the other way around. The Irish terrorized the British – and the Irish terrorized the Irish. Or so they would have us believe. And sure, if the facts of history don’t fit that interpretation don’t worry, they will be ignored or replaced with some home-made ones of their own. It worked before. Just ask Peter Hart.

Perhaps I should leave it to others to offer a more studied opinion of the televised theatrics of the TV3 documentary? Professor John Borgonovo has his say in the Irish Examiner:

“In the first episode, viewers met an aged Co Laois man who related his boyhood encounter with a neighbouring farmer, who claimed he had dug up a body while ploughing his field, one of three corpses supposedly buried there by the IRA.

Series host Prof Eunan O’Halpin (of Trinity College Dublin) told the audience his research had uncovered two civilians abducted by the Tipperary IRA and “never seen again”. The rest of the episode attempted to prove his theory that they were interred in this Laois field.

At considerable expense, a team of forensic archaeologists dug up the fine pasture, before informing O’Halpin that no corpses could be located. Meanwhile, O’Halpin travelled to Dublin to request the release of Department of Justice files relating to his two missing men.

The episode concluded with O’Halpin opening the sealed files, only to learn that both had survived the conflict. They were never killed by the IRA, much less secretly buried in Laois. The obvious lesson here is: Finish your research before you rent the JCB.

Undeterred, in the second episode, O’Halpin moves to more fertile ground in Cork City and Knockraha, a village a few miles east of Cork. In recent years, the area has attracted considerable speculation about the killing of alleged informers, especially Protestants.

Much interest stems from Gerard Murphy’s 2011 book, The Year of Disappearances, which received overwhelmingly negative reviews from historians concerned by his over-reliance on folklore and supposition. Murphy’s unlikely theories of covert revolutionary activity in Cork included the IRA’s unrecorded killing of up to 30 Freemasons in the spring of 1922, and the drowning of Protestant schoolchildren by IRA intelligence agent Josephine Brown.

The absence of such dramatic events in contemporary and later records (civilian, military, governmental, and religious) leads me to conclude that they did not occur. I was surprised, therefore, by the sight of Murphy relating additional theories for In the Name of the Republic.”

Surprise is one way of putting it. But then birds of a feather an’ all that.

Meanwhile historian John Dorney, who’s truly excellent website The Irish Story has gone to great lengths to present a dispassionate and fair evaluation of the revolutionary period, examines the issue of the 200 “murders” Eunan O’Halpin alleges were carried out by the Irish Republican Army:

“Immediately this set alarm bells ringing. In 2012, O’Halpin published the first results of his and Daithí Ó Corráin’s research, which revealed that the IRA in the War of Independence, was responsible for 281 of the 898 civilian fatalities, with British forces being responsible for 381. A further 236 deaths could not be confidently attributed to any party (the IRA, loyalist, rioters, undercover Crown forces).

This brings up two questions – first of all, where did all the extra ‘disappeared’ victims come from? There was no effort made in the programme to verify this figure of 200 secret killings by the IRA. Secondly, given that state forces actually killed more civilians, why was this not given greater prominence in the programme?

Even worse was the programme quoting the Royal Irish Constabulary as an impartial witness to events. An RIC DI was quoted saying,  ‘People are afraid to be associated with the forces of the crown’, by an IRA – ‘system of universal terrorism’, and called for the ‘extermination of these bandits’. What else would a party to a counter insurgency campaign say?

In the second part, looking at County Cork, it was alleged that the IRA Cork Number 1 Brigade, which covered north Cork and the city, abducted and killed up to 90 victims and secretly buried them on the farm of one Martin Corry.

Corry claimed in his IRA pension that 27 bodies were buried on his farm and in a bog (now forest) called Knockraha. In recordings in the 1970s he claimed that there were ’60 even’. The problem with this testimony is that there does not seem to have been 60, 90 or even 30 victims missing that could fit into the alleged mass graves. Corry for instance told local historian Jim Fitzgerald that 17 ‘Camerons’ (of the Highland Cameron regiment) were buried there. In fact, John Borgonovo tells us, the regiment had only 3 men missing in its time in Cork.

I am informed that Jim Fitzgerald himself estimates that between Corry’s farm and Knockraha there may be 15 bodies buried. The figure of 90 secret deaths comes from Gerard Murphy, whose book, the Year of the Disappearances, was rightly savaged here on the Irish Story by Pádraig Óg Ó Ruairc for presenting supposition as evidence.

But there was no evidence presented for scores of disappeared civilians. Nor for tendentious talk about the Cork IRA’s campaign of ‘extortion’ and ‘torture’. The casual viewer would never have guessed that the IRA represented a political movement with overwhelming electoral support in the elections of 1918 and 1920.

…this was a bafflingly biased programme. It presented and inflated all the bad things the IRA did, shorn of context while proposing a thesis of hundreds of disappeared which was never even remotely proved.

So why the sensational anti-republican tone of ‘In the Name of the Republic’?

There is nothing to be gained by treating nationalist history as a sacred cow but nothing either by making radical claims unsupported by evidence.”

But that begs the question, is there nothing to be gained by the falsification of Irish history as it relates to the War of Independence? Or are there in fact real political gains to be made by inflicting untold damage on the Irish people’s understanding of their own history? Are we seeing in Ireland a larger “culture war”, as has been witnessed in the United States, over the nation’s past, present and future? A war played out in the pages of our national newspapers every week, and on our radios and TVs? The United States has Glenn Beck or Fox News. We have Kevin Myers or the Sunday Independent. In the struggle between Progressives and Regressives in Ireland the Irish Revolution represents the greatest loss of status and influence for the latter. Is it any wonder that they wish to contest it, even in retrospect?

And what about Ireland’s British-owned television channel TV3? Some more analysis and dramatic re-enactments of supposed events from world history in a series of exciting new TV programmes? Perhaps the “truth” about Anne Frank? Or a sympathetic examination of the Lost Cause? But after the farce of the last two weeks will anyone be watching?

30 comments on “Truth Is The First Casualty Of War

  1. I don’t dispute your notion that the program you discuss, “In the Name of the Republic,” sounds incredibly one-sided and has an anti-Irish bias. (I am in the States and haven’t seen the show, but you have listed plenty of examples that leave me no reason to doubt your analysis.

    I would clarify in regard to the U.S. Civil War, however, that calling the conflict the War Between the States rather than the Civil War is not necessarily the work of a few fringe pro-Southern academics. I say this because when I think of a civil war, I think of what took place in England in the 1640s, Russia from 1917-22, Spain from 1936-39 and, of course, Ireland in the early 1920s. Those were all struggles in which one or more sides fought for control of a single state.

    The difference in the U.S. Civil War was that the South sought to go its own way and break away from, rather than take over, the North. I avoid the revisionists with their historically suspect sources and ideas, but I do think that it’s clear that the conflict was of a different nature than the typical “civil war.”

    As to why you’re seeing the type of coverage that was demonstrated in “In the Name of the Republic,” that’s an excellent question. I think I noted on an early post that this doesn’t happen without reason. Someone somewhere has a reason to push an agenda when it runs so counter to demonstrable fact. You, given your knowledge and proximity, are likely better able to determine the reason than I am.


    • I recently came across a good online article on the issue of renaming the Civil War as the “War between the States” or the more obviously biased “War of Northern Aggression” and the political intentions behind the historical revisionism. Will try and search it out. Interesting to see the US view on these things – from all sides – and how some history can remain entirely contemporary.


      • I agree there are plenty of revisionists on both sides regarding the U.S. Civil War – some who do it out of ignorance and some for more malicious reasons. And I’d imagine most all history in any part of the world suffers from this sort of thing, unfortunately.

        I’d enjoy seeing the article if you can find it.


  2. re. “There is nothing to be gained by treating nationalist history as a sacred cow but nothing either by making radical claims unsupported by evidence”

    I would largely go along with this but prefer a bad debate to none at all.

    ps Although disagreeing with (your friend) Kevin Myers I have to declare myself a very big fan of his writing.


    • He makes the odd good observation when scribing about northern ireland especially after criticising the orange order and the loyalist community in general, plus also slammed both parties as ‘brats’, it may not be done out of sympathy for nationalism but he spent his early journalistic career in belfast during the first part of the troubles and once slammed ulster loyalists for trying to create an identity out of a vacumn. Funnily enough he knows the union is ending and I think the stuff that’s been going on is simply extracting plenty of concession or repartition if scotland goes independent. Theres an article from october 2008 about this.;


    • Debate, yes, definitely. Bad debate? I’m not so sure, especially if it stems from bad history that then becomes the accepted truth. Myers et al are not seekers after the truth. They wish to muddy the truth. That is my objection to them and to this programme. It was bad history. And knowingly – perhaps deliberately – so.

      That is worrying.


      • re. “That is worrying”

        Bad history or opinions that stimulate debate are better than no history or debate – but is worrying if it becomes accpeted unchallenged fact.

        re. “Myers et al are not seekers after the truth”. Myers entry point into any discussion is from an ideological position which is different form yours (and mine). It is not untruthful for Myers to argue or believe that Ireland would have been better off under British rule or that violent republicanism was not the best option for Ireland at either end of the 20th century.

        There is not a single version of the ‘truth’ in mater of political ideology – and there are in matters concerning Irelands bouts of violence 2 sides to the story.

        It is also worrying when we forget that.


  3. He may hold consistent views on stuff like the irish language and british empire as repugnant as they are he also changes his mind on issues like cromwell and the catholic church if he’s bashing republicans or nationalists or defending the government. could also not believe some stuff he writes for the independent


  4. mark,

    he spectacularly got it wrong over SF and the peace process which was down to his(anti -republican) ideology blinkering his understanding but I found it refereshing that he attacked the ‘sacred cows'(mentioned above) of Nationalism.

    At least to the boy Kevin, the IRA were a bunch of terrorists both at the start and the end of of the 20th century – which was a bit more consistent than many of his contemporaries.


    • While the RIC, Auxies and Black an’ Tans were the heroes. Take Myers out of the Irish situation and transfer him to France and one could see him spending a lifetime excusing the actions of Marshal Pétain and the Vichy regime while condemning La Résistance française. The man’s views are reprehensible as is his belief in the racial and moral purity of those of alleged Anglo-Irish ancestry in contrast to the inferior “Gaelic” stock.


      • Making a comaprison between the occupation of Ireland by the Briitsh and the occupation of France by the Germans is a nonsense and smacks of serious Irish Nationlaist self indulgence and would embarassingly lead to reminders of IRA collaboration with the Nazis in assisting in the bombing of Belfast.

        It would be intresting to see a fair factual evaluation of the behaviour and attitudes of the RIC – I suspect republican history is laced with a considerable element of propaganda. Any impartial(ish) sources you can recommend?

        re. “racial and moral purity of those of alleged Anglo-Irish ancestry in contrast to the inferior “Gaelic” stock”

        I take this is not just an impression you have formed and you have a quote to back that up?


        • Actually my intended comparison was between the Vichy regime and the old order of the Irish Parliamentary Party who Myers regards with such affection. The very same IPP which did little to nothing to end or ameliorate British colonial rule in Ireland while playing both sides against the other to keep its own pockets lined with danegeld. Myers’ defence of Redmond and company is every bit as stomach-turning as those revisionist French who defend Pétain and co. He decries Pádraig Mac Piarais as the person responsible for the 500 dead of the 1916 Rising but leaves Redmond blameless for the many tens of thousands of Irishmen who died in the fields of France. On the contrary, he praises all involved. Apparently THEY are Ireland’s patriot dead.

          Will give you a longer response on the issue of the RIC when I get a chance. A LONG day in work and I need a BIG cup of tea, I’m afraid… 😉

          Meanwhile for quotes please see here. Not to mention this.


          • re. “Will give you a longer response on the issue of the RIC when I get a chance. A LONG day in work and I need a BIG cup of tea, I’m afraid”

            …and it is not a simple issue.

            And I’m looking forward to any Myers material indicating his belief in the “racial and moral purity of those of alleged Anglo-Irish ancestry in contrast to the inferior “Gaelic” stock”


            • Provided the latter in the link. For further elucidation:


              “Firstly, Fine Gael should start by slowly renaming itself.

              …ditch the ridiculous name, Fine Gael the Republican Party. Firstly, all those Lucinda, Simons, Marks and Garrets are as much family of the Gael as they are the family of Dayaks.

              …just look at the glorious riches that exist in Irish law-abiding history. Edmund Burke, a philosophical giant and opponent of revolutionary bloodshed. Arthur Wellesley, having defeated Napoleonic despotism in the field, went on to legally emancipate the Catholics of Ireland and Britain. He’s ours: to be shared, no doubt, but unquestionably a son of Ireland. [renamed FG must] …lay claim to being the heirs to the Irish Parliamentary Party, which won Home Rule.

              [a renamed FG] …will not do a tribal war dance at Bael na mBlath or Bodenstown. They will not “celebrate” the Rising. They will stand four-square behind the rule of law. Their children will learn politeness, punctuality, the piano and Chinese.

              [a renamed FG must] …accept that around 25-30pc of the population will never vote for them. These are the congenital Sneaking-Regarders, the people who are guided through life by a green compass in their kitbag and a wristwatch that never tells the right time. There’s only thing that one can do with this sociopathic strain in Irish life — the one that thinks it entertainingly eccentric to be late for appointments, which regards planning permissions as lawful currency, and which sees the IRA as the slightly wayward but nonetheless amusing wing of the family — and that is to keep it firmly from power of any kind.”

              And who would the 25-30% would be? Certainly not the Lucindas and Simons. Maybe the Seáns and Síles. Or the Ós, Macs, Mags, Nís, Nics and Uís.


              “But that is the nature of Fine Gael. It is defined by self-doubt and equivocation. With all its Lucindas, its Simons, its Garrets, its Olwyns and its Richards, its silly name notwithstanding, it is not a family of Gaels. It is a perpetual minority, largely of non-Gaelic, Anglo-Norman Catholics in ethnic origin: strong farmers, smalltown merchants and lawyers.

              Fianna Fail, with its eighty years of being in the driving seat — with the Simons being occasionally permitted to take over whenever Cuchulainn got tired at the wheel — still gets the obedient Soloheadbeg vote. But with so much political power for so long, it has colonised the old unionist boroughs of Pembroke and Kingstown, and the salubrious postal districts of Dublin 4 and 6. It has created a mandarin class whose accents and manners are identical to those of Fine Gael. Fianna Fail children go to Clongowes and Gonzaga, and their social camouflage is completed by their gloriously Protestant names: the Emmas, the Jessicas and the Jennies whose great grandfathers (or so the family legend maintains) were in the GPO.

              Their suits might shimmer with expensive threads, but they embody still the weird morality of Fianna Fail, in which clan and conspiracy, cronyism and ancestral cordite define loyalty.”

              Ancestral cordite being associated with who? Not the admirable “non-Gaelic, Anglo-Norman Catholics” that’s for sure.

              If you require more I’m sure you can search it out. If the above is not the language of race, oh so carefully worded and oh so carefully implied, then what is?


              • Not sure he goes as far as you suggested – but he is close enough so I wont quibble. excellent piece of writing – parts of which could have been written by those attacking the fine Gaelers. His 3 references to timekeeping may be saying more about himself than he intended.

                Myers should be commended for having the balls and the writing talent to shove in our faces day and daily what for many of us is an uncomfortable and unwelcome thought – that there were many positives to British rule in Ireland – leaving us to respond with – apart from roads railways, architctecture, literature etc. I’m not sure Ireland is yet (understandably) mature enough as a country yet to have this type of debate and this is one of the reasons for such antipathy to the boy Kev.

                To return to more comfortable territory for us these 2 characters with ango-Irish connections – who I have never heard discussed in an Irish context are probably not likely to feature in any of Kev’s writings.





              • When irish newspapers, t.v stations and other media outlets are owned by english/british/planter stock, then it shouldnt surprise no one when their employees become ‘brave’ and publish articles that are critical of anything irish. Even in Ireland it is far harder to get your voice heard if you happen to be a critic of britishness never mind getting a job on one of its national newspapers. But if you happen to display a dislike of irishness or even better, republicanism, i would guess your odds on gaining a prominent media job would improve greatly. Some of the bravest people this country and indeed other countries have produced, were people who didnt take the populist view but rather a view that left you condemned,mocked.discriminated or indeed killed by the establishment. Its easy to toe the line and doff the cap. I may not be ‘mature’ enough yet to acknowledge the ‘good’ the english brought to this country but i would hope that if they english had never set foot on irish soil we may have still managed to build the odd road here and there to ensure the traffic of horse and carts ran smoothly!


              • re. ”
                wolfe tone on 31/03/2013 at 4:03 pm said:
                “When irish newspapers, t.v stations and other media outlets are owned by english/british/planter stock, then it shouldnt surprise no one when their employees become ‘brave’ and publish articles that are critical of anything irish.”

                that sounds like more nonsense and what Seamus was (reasonably) complaining about i.e. “racial and moral purity of those of alleged Anglo-Irish ancestry in contrast to the inferior “Gaelic” stock”

                The fact is the British left the southern part of the country nearly a 100 years ago and trying to interpet everything through the filter of the British legacy in the press etc doesn’t really advance Ireland’s cause – rather the reverse. As some Trade Union leader (I have no idea what ‘stock’ he’s from) said “The Troika [the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund] has done more damage to Ireland than Britain ever did in 800 years.” That is down to the stupidity of both planter and non planter stock electing incompetents to plunder and wreck the country and has jack to do with perfidious Albion.

                Maybe time to move on Wolfey.


              • Britain ‘left’ many a country they occuppied but that didnt stop them from ensuring their interests were maintained one way or another in their former colonies. Even today they try to impose their ways on other countries by propaganda,civil agitation,coups and wars allthewhile justifying this interference as humanitarian. I’ll ‘move on’ when the planter stock cease denigrating any Irish person who wants to learn their native language, honour Irish people who fought for independence or any other way an irish person wants to take pride in their
                country. Its nothing to be ashamed of . Most countries promote with pride their history and culture and Ireland shouldnt be any different. I am sure when young american kids are standing in their school hall regularly singing their anthem the media will not condemn them for taking pride in their country? If that was encouraged in schools here in Ireland there would no doubt be uproar and condemnation from the planter stock. There might even be the odd
                protest at the school because someone elses ‘culture’ wasnt being promoted. Move on???


              • Ah now, that is a bit along the lines of, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” 😉

                I can’t imagine people in Norway or Sweden or France or Germany or Russia or Japan saying: “If only the British had invaded, occupied and colonised our nations then we might have better roads, railways, architecture and literature”! They sort of did it themselves – and so would we. The truth is our development as a nation was interrupted and severed 800 years. And look how we ended up!


              • re. “can’t imagine people in Norway or Sweden or France or Germany or Russia or Japan saying: “If only the British had invaded, occupied and colonised our nations then we might have better roads, railways, architecture and literature”! They sort of did it themselves – and so would we.”

                Neither can I. But neither should we deny that in areas of literature and architecture there were postivies in the ‘union’ which are a part of our history which we benefit from today.

                Do you not agree?


              • No and yes. The question is based upon something of a false premise. Namely that somehow what we have inherited from British colonial rule compensates, or is equal or superior to what we would have had if British colonisation had never happened. I take the view that the British presence in Ireland was an unmitigated disaster for the pre-existing civilization of this island nation and that we are still living with the after-effects of that disaster.

                That does not mean I would strip out every symbol of Britishness or of our colonial legacy. We are where we are. Georgian Dublin (what’s left of it) is a treasure. And saving the “Big Houses” dotted up and down the nation is worthwhile. I think we should keep the old Arthur Wellesley obelisk in the Phoenix Park or the odd green letter box with a Victoria Regina plate.

                Legacy is one thing. But I’m not sure one can argue for them being “positives” when one thinks of what was lost (and possibly never recoverable).


  5. re. “The question is based upon something of a false premise. Namely that somehow what we have inherited from British colonial rule compensates, or is equal or superior to what we would have had ”

    No it is not based on that premise at all. There are both positives and negatives from the union with Britian – like you I happen to believe the latter outweigh the former.

    Having a debate about the postives is not easy as we can see. That is one of the reason I like what Myers writes – not that I agree with him but because the cosy Nationalist historical conseneus of 2 legs bad (British) 4 legs good (Irish) needs to be debated and based on fact rather than ideology/prejudice.

    The reaction to Myers indicates that there is still considerable difficulty in having such a debate.


    • I like the Orwell reference 😉

      Fair enough though I might suggest that the overreactions to Myers stem from a lack of self-belief and self-worth in many Irish people and their inability to counter Myers and the Neo-Unionist fringe on their own terms. His faux assumption of English and Anglo-Irish superiority needs countering but that is difficult when many Irish people still have a “peasant mindset” when it comes to their own history and Gaelic legacy. They are indoctrinated through popular culture into doffing the metaphorical hat to the folk of the Big House and assume that every culture but their own is superior.

      How many books or articles have you read that talked about Irish or Gaelic “civilization” in reference to pre-Norman/-English Ireland? But those that talk about Ireland being incorporated into Angevin, Elizabethan, English or British civilization are plentiful.

      Republicans see a “colonisation” of Ireland. Myers et all see a “civilizing” of Ireland. That is part of the debate and the struggle for hearts and minds.


      • re. “Republicans see a “colonisation” of Ireland. Myers et all see a “civilizing” of Ireland. That is part of the debate and the struggle for hearts and minds.”

        Yes that is a good summary – I personally believe that there is massive goodwill and appetitie amongst the Plain People of Ireland for ‘irish culture’ but we have not been great at harnessing that like for e.g. as the Welsh have done with their language.

        In relation to “How many books or articles have you read that talked about Irish or Gaelic “civilization” in reference to pre-Norman/-English Ireland. “. The role of Irish monks in ‘civilising’ Britain is well understood in British and Irish academic circles and the BBC did a program on this a few years back.(Not sure about RTE?).
        In terms of books – is a well known one that springs to mind.

        ps Dál Riata is an interesting variation of the Union.


          • Yes, this is the one I saw – Dannyboy done good.

            He did an interesting program recently on Syria – one which would have not got down well with the FO.


            • Agreed. Though the emphasis on the alleged “barbarism” and “primitiveness” of the pre-Christian Irish is grossly overdone. Megalithic and Bronze Age Ireland was a cultural powerhouse in western Europe. Ireland in the late and early centuries BCE/CE produced some of the finest Le Téne artefacts in Europe. But that is not an anti-Irish or Anglocentric thing. Rather it is simply lazy (and badly out-of-date) scholarship. The stereotypes and familiar stories make for an easier telling. Lots of little errors. And the Irish contributors are very poor.

              The History Of Syria must have irked quite a few.


  6. Personally , reacting to O’Halpin,s historical fabrications gives them credibility but also needs correction for those who may believe his fictional inventions.
    It seems strange ,coming up to the centenary of 1916 that these false disrespectful accounts are given air-time. Thew Queen bowed and paid homage to all irish Republicans of that era , when she visited Dublin . I doubt she,d give O Halpin any credibility either as she apologized for Britain’s wrongs.
    It would suit these so called researchers to investigate all events etc around Michael Collin,s death .
    It wasnt Carson who opposed home rule but Lord Lucan and Napoleon Bonaparte as ordered by Crown Prince Yoshihito of Japan


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: