Casualties in Dublin in the civil war


Deaf Mute

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
366
Are Finnish politics still poisoned by their Civil war in the same way as Irish Politics are?
The only reason Irish politics is "poisoned" by the civil war is because one side is angry with the other side that they defected from the Irish Republic and fought for the formation of the British Free State.

English rule in Ireland is the poison.
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,529
i knew people who faught in the civil war, they didn't like to talk about it presumed that was because of things that happened during it, reading this thread not much happened.
 

Deaf Mute

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
366
There were pogroms in Northern Ireland at the time.
I know. I was only saying the civil war was in Southern Ireland as Ireland was/is partitioned by the English under the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,045
Are Finnish politics still poisoned by their Civil war in the same way as Irish Politics are?

I dunno in all honestly. I wouldn't be surprised if the severity of the Finnish war meant that all parties made a greater effort to put it behind then and move on. Much like Germany and France now.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,254
i knew people who faught in the civil war, they didn't like to talk about it presumed that was because of things that happened during it, reading this thread not much happened.
Not many deaths but I suspect a lot of families broken by virtue of fighting for/supporting different sides.
 

JohnD66

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3,316
i knew people who faught in the civil war, they didn't like to talk about it presumed that was because of things that happened during it, reading this thread not much happened.
Nonsense, 1,500 deaths in nine months is huge by Irish standards; this rises to about 2,000 if you add in the vioence in the north in early 1922. Add on 2,000 deaths from 1917-21 and 500 in 1916 and the toll is not enourmous but not insignificant either.

By comparison the worst year of the Troubles was in 1972 when about 450 were killed, and no one, with knowledge of how much pain and bitterness that conflict caused would claim that 'not much happened.'
 
D

Dylan2010

what would have happened if there hadnt been partition, would you have got your 40,000 dead?
 

JohnD66

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3,316
what would have happened if there hadnt been partition, would you have got your 40,000 dead?
I don't honestly think so. Violence in the north was quite bad anyway, but according to latest figures I've seen, in a book called 'Frontiers of Violence' the death toll from 1920-22 in nine county Ulster was 714 killed.

There was open hostilities to some extent along the border in early 1922 between the IRA (pro and anti_treaty) and Ulster Specials, especially at Pettigo, where there was a mini battle including the bombardment and storming of the town (which straddles the border) by British regulars. But the fighting was very much much like that later in the year between pro and anti-Treaty forces. Lots of shooting but few casulaties (8 IRA one British soldier and 2 USC and 2 civilians). Artillery decided the matter in short order.

None of the rival militias in Ireland, except for the British and the British backed Free State forces were set up for conventional war. Without partition, British troops would have been used to put down Ulster Volunteer resistance to enforce Home Rule and would probably have done so with relative ease provided they obey orders. There would certainly have been sectarian killings but would they have been much worse than what actually happened?

Of course the other possibility is that the British pulled out unilaterally (never really likely) leaving vulnerable minorities open to mass expulsion or killing. But thankfully nothing remitely like this happened in that period.
 

cottage_economist

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
527
I've just finished reading, "The Flame and the Candle", a recent book about the fighting in Mayo 1919-1923. I took a few notes as I went along, and was surprised to find that around as many were killed after the Truce as before it, and that nearly all of these appeared to be Irish. Only one casualty was definitely British, a soldier killed in the Tourmakedy Ambush, although as Black and Tans were part of the RIC and weren't listed separately there may have been a few from that organisation. As the Auxiliaries reported directly to Dublin Castle and weren't part of the RIC I would have thought they would have been listed separately, had any been killed.

The question could be raised as to what degree the War of Independence was a civil war, given that the majority of protagonists on both sides were Irish.
 

Campion

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
597
I've just finished reading, "The Flame and the Candle", a recent book about the fighting in Mayo 1919-1923. I took a few notes as I went along, and was surprised to find that around as many were killed after the Truce as before it, and that nearly all of these appeared to be Irish. Only one casualty was definitely British, a soldier killed in the Tourmakedy Ambush, although as Black and Tans were part of the RIC and weren't listed separately there may have been a few from that organisation. As the Auxiliaries reported directly to Dublin Castle and weren't part of the RIC I would have thought they would have been listed separately, had any been killed.

The question could be raised as to what degree the War of Independence was a civil war, given that the majority of protagonists on both sides were Irish.
That British guy in Mayo was accidental or collateral damage-- for hundreds of years the people in Tourmakeady have ambushed anyone who doesn't look familiar to them. Its worse still in Partry, where men have been known to ambush their own mothers.
 

Evergreenfinch

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
4,157
There were pogroms in Northern Ireland at the time.
How can it be a pogrom when the casualty figures for each side worked out 42/58%!
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
The whigs haven't existed for over 100 years! FG and FF still exist - unfortunately.
That is over two hundred and fifty years they lasted so, going by current statistics we will have Fianna Fáil around for another 160 years so, with Fine Gale tipped to survive much longer seeing as the Tories are still around today!
 
H

Humbert

I'm always struck by the low casualty figures in the Anglo-Irish and even the Civil War. They were clearly popgun fights compared to comparable conflicts around the same time in Europe.

That, of course, didn't take anything from the grief of the surviving friends and relatives of the dead. Nor does it take from the savagery of Ballyseedy or of the Free State's extra-judicial killings.

Executions during the Irish Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm always struck by what we are told was the extraordinary bitterness that lingered between the two sides after such a low-intensity conflict.

I often think that they must have hated each other before, the war just brought it out.

In this connection the tribal theory - that you have those who desire a pure 'gaelic' Ireland, those who believe in tolerance between those of different descents, and Unionists - is compelling, for those are still the main divisions in Irish politics.

I feel the Civil War was really about who what the identity of the new country was going to be - the casualties certainly do not seem to warrant a party division which has lasted nearly 100 years.
 

JohnD66

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3,316
Article had since been updated as of November 2014

Casualties of the Irish Civil War in Dublin | The Irish Story

218 killed and 695 wounded in the city and its environs from January 1922 to May 1923 due to political violence.

A detailed breakdown is in the table below but the dead were; 68 Free State forces, 85 Anti-Treaty IRA and 58 civilians. Along with 4 British Army and 1 RIC killed.

And roughly 3,500 people arrested and interned.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
11,555
I do have a problem with John Dourney's casualty figures for the 16-23 period. His is an extremely good website but I'm not quite sure why so much faith must be put into the British Army's official casualty lists. For example, John's piece about Mount Street bridge takes the amount of killed directly from the BA's records. The BA (and indeed every army in the history of warfare) have a long history of playing down their own casualties and exaggerating their enemies. Its a natural occurrence but why take only one side's figure as gospel?

Right throughout the Anglo-Irish war, the national press under control of the the Government, minimised crown forces casualties and totally fabricated those of the old IRA (the old IRA of course did the exact opposite).

Why the assumption that the BA's casualty figures are unerringly accurate when history tells us that's rarely been the case?
 

DrNightdub

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
439
Twitter
@DrNightdub
While you're right about the general tendency of armies to understate their casualties, the likes of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission seem to have been fairly rigorous in trying to document British soldiers' deaths. They would be a useful source against which to cross-check the official claims. Local papers from the time are another valuable source.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,277
I'm always struck by the low casualty figures in the Anglo-Irish and even the Civil War. They were clearly popgun fights compared to comparable conflicts around the same time in Europe.

That, of course, didn't take anything from the grief of the surviving friends and relatives of the dead. Nor does it take from the savagery of Ballyseedy or of the Free State's extra-judicial killings.

Executions during the Irish Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, yes we were actually quite fortunate.

And even the deths that hadocurred could have been avoided if both sides were not so hot tempered and intransigent.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,277
I'm always struck by what we are told was the extraordinary bitterness that lingered between the two sides after such a low-intensity conflict.

I often think that they must have hated each other before, the war just brought it out.

In this connection the tribal theory - that you have those who desire a pure 'gaelic' Ireland, those who believe in tolerance between those of different descents, and Unionists - is compelling, for those are still the main divisions in Irish politics.

I feel the Civil War was really about who what the identity of the new country was going to be - the casualties certainly do not seem to warrant a party division which has lasted nearly 100 years.
Nonsense. In fact utter bullsh!t.

The division was mostly based on the "haves" versus the "have-nots".
Both have different objectives, and a different mentality.

The "haves" wanted to keep their influence, power, privileges, status, wealth (however small).
The "have nots" wanted to level the playing field and were motivated by different objectives.

It was control versus ambition.
Authority versus rebellion.
Respectability versus revolt.
 
Top