Historians should call a ceasefire

I HAVE been following the media battle between historians Meda Ryan and Peter Hart for some time now.

It is obvious that both are following their own agenda on the history (or mythology) of the War of Independence. To what purpose is a mystery since the events of 86 years ago, while making interesting reading, are irrelevant today.

While Mr Hart weakens his case by refusing to reveal the names of his witnesses, Ms Ryan weakens hers by misinterpreting the witness statement she quoted in the Irish Examiner of May 22. Firstly, an Auxiliary was highly unlikely to have obeyed Tom Barry’s ceasefire signal, so his fighting on after the triple whistle blast is no evidence of treachery. Incidentally, ambushers frequently use a fake ceasefire signal to encourage the ambushed to break cover, a trick probably well known both to the Auxiliaries and to Tom Barry.