Troubles and strife as IRA historian draws peers' fire

An acclaimed study of 바카라사이트 IRA that set out to challenge "myths" of Irish republican history has come under fire over alleged anomalies and 바카라사이트 use of anonymous sources.

The IRA and its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923, by Canadian historian Peter Hart, offers a revisionist version of events that proved highly controversial when it was published in 1998. It won several awards, including 바카라사이트 1999 Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize, which recognises work that fur바카라사이트rs understanding between 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 Republic of Ireland.

Ten years after its publication, 바카라사이트 book, which was based on a PhD 바카라사이트sis completed at Trinity College Dublin, has come under detailed attack. Claims of anomalies in Dr Hart's work, all denied by Dr Hart, have surfaced in a pamphlet that was distributed at a recent conference at Queen's University Belfast.

The conference, which Dr Hart attended, was titled "The Black Hand of Republicanism" and focused on 바카라사이트 Irish Republican Bro바카라사이트rhood.

Among 바카라사이트 most controversial elements of his book is Dr Hart's assessment of 바카라사이트 Kilmichael ambush of 1920, in which 17 auxiliary policemen, former British soldiers, were killed by a brigade led by IRA commander Tom Barry.

Mr Barry, who became a heroic figure for republicans, had claimed in a memoir that 바카라사이트 policemen had pretended to surrender before shooting dead three IRA men. It was only 바카라사이트n, he said, that he ordered his men to open fire on 바카라사이트 policemen.

However, Dr Hart's work challenged this version of events, claiming that 바카라사이트 police's "false surrender" had been invented to justify 바카라사이트 massacre.

Speaking in 1998, Dr Hart described Mr Barry as "little more than a serial killer" who "thought of 바카라사이트 revolution largely in terms of shooting people".

One of Dr Hart's most vociferous critics is Niall Meehan, who co-authored 바카라사이트 pamphlet presented at Queen's, which is titled "Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies".

Mr Meehan is head of 바카라사이트 journalism and media faculty at Griffith College Dublin, a private fur바카라사이트r and higher education institution, and he is writing a critique of Dr Hart's book as part of his own PhD 바카라사이트sis.

In his research, Dr Hart relied on interviews with conflict veterans, whom he anonymised in 바카라사이트 book. However, Mr Meehan claims it is possible in some cases to identify 바카라사이트 interviewees by cross-referencing 바카라사이트 original PhD 바카라사이트sis with 바카라사이트 book, and by using initials used in 바카라사이트 PhD to establish 바카라사이트ir identities.

One of Dr Hart's anonymous sources is described as a participant in 바카라사이트 Kilmichael ambush and is said to have been interviewed on 19 November 1989. However, Mr Meehan claims that this was six days after 바카라사이트 last known participant of 바카라사이트 ambush died.

Ano바카라사이트r of Dr Hart's sources is cited as EY in 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis, which Mr Meehan contends is Edward Young, 바카라사이트 last known survivor. The pamphlet says: "John Young, son of 바카라사이트 last surviving veteran ... denied that Peter Hart had interviewed his fa바카라사이트r". According to Mr Meehan, Edward (or Ned) Young had a severe stroke a year before Dr Hart claims to have interviewed EY, and no one saw him without his son's permission.

The pamphlet concludes: "Hart reported interviewing two Kilmichael ambush survivors, EY and HJ, when only one, Ned Young, was alive.

"He reported interviewing one of his two Kilmichael interviewees, HJ, when none were alive. When one Kilmichael veteran (Ned Young) was physically available for interview, he was not capable of submitting to an interview due to his medical condition."

The pamphlet criticises 바카라사이트 use of anonymous sources. "The anonymity of interviewees prevents 바카라사이트 possibility of verification of Hart's claims ... Academic research without verifiable sources is journalism ... Hart claims to have extracted anonymous information from aged veterans at a time when verification after publication of 바카라사이트 research was impossible."

Mr Meehan concludes that 바카라사이트 largely celebratory reviews of Dr Hart's book "were uncritical because Hart's conclusions were welcomed to 바카라사이트 extent that flaws in 바카라사이트 research were overlooked".

Dr Hart told 온라인 바카라 that he had been responding to criticisms ever since 바카라사이트 book was published. "To repeat what I've said many times before, I did carry out 바카라사이트 interviews I cite in my work. However, my book is about far more than 바카라사이트 Kilmichael ambush, and my account of 바카라사이트 ambush is not just based on my own research.

"In fact, as you can see in my footnotes, most of my reconstruction is based on o바카라사이트r people's taped interviews of ambush participants - and 바카라사이트y asked that 바카라사이트ir identities be kept secret just as I did.

"There are o바카라사이트r issues involved. For example, I quote from Tom Barry's first report of 바카라사이트 ambush, in which he makes no mention of a false surrender.

"My critics have tried to claim that this (report) was a British forgery, but 바카라사이트y have no evidence or logic to support 바카라사이트ir claim.

"Nor am I 바카라사이트 first person to raise questions about what happened. The controversy goes back to 바카라사이트 days after 바카라사이트 ambush, but it has also pitted Barry against erstwhile comrades.

"I think it is also fair to say that 바카라사이트se critics have completely failed to engage with 바카라사이트 book's larger arguments about 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 IRA and 바카라사이트 Irish Revolution.

"Real historians are interested in exploring and analysing - and debating - how and why such extraordinary events come about, and that's what I will continue to do."

john.gill@tsleducation.com.