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.

Secondly, Jack Hennessy stated that he fired at living and dead Auxies for some time after regaining cover (inevitably at the wounded also). He added that after Barry sounded the ceasefire a second time, “nearly all the Auxies had been wiped out”.

It is improbable, even without Hennessy’s statement, that all the Auxiliaries were killed outright since non-fatal battle casualties usually outnumber the fatalities by three-to-one.

What happened those Auxiliaries who were not “wiped out” during the fighting? Whatever happened at Kilmichael was known only to those who participated. Since all participants are now dead, any chance of finding the truth has disappeared.

Those who publish their opinions on such events should examine the known facts dispassionately, write without prejudice and name their sources.

Michael Dolan

36 Rosemount Park

Rosegreen

Cashel

Co Tipperary