Sir, —In relation to the debate over Hidden History’s Coolacreasedocumentary, Brian Hanley (HI 16.1, Jan./Feb. 2008) says that ‘weshould accept the fact that there was undoubtedly an element ofsectarian conflict during the [Irish] revolution and that some peoplewere targeted for sectarian reasons’. But surely historians should onlyaccept as fact what is demonstrated as fact? If … Read more
A chara, —Further to Padraig Ó Snodaigh’s letter (HI 16.2, March/April2008) in response to Michael Gibbons’s review of Dublin Nazi No. 1: thelife of Adolf Mahr (HI 15.5, Sept./Oct. 2007), staff in the NationalMuseum may have regarded Mahr with respect as a scholar and scientistbut members of the security services would have another angle on … Read more
Sir, —I am currently undertaking research for a Ph.D at Queen’sUniversity, Belfast, on the 10th (Irish) Division in the Great War.Drawing its recruits from all sectors of the Irish population, northand south, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, and from every one ofthe four provinces, the division was the first and least well known ofthe three divisions … Read more
Sir, —In response to my necessarily brief article on the EucharisticCongress (HI 15.6, Nov./Dec. 2007), Anthony Jordan (letters, HI 16.1,Jan./Feb. 2008) remarks on my neglect in not mentioning the Cumann nanGaedheal government, led by W. T. Cosgrave, which, in Mr Jordan’swords, ‘did much of the long-term planning for the Congress’. TheEucharistic Congress was in fact … Read more
Sir, —Your Jan./Feb. 2008 issue proves that controversy still haunts the Irish revolutionary period. Brian Hanley (‘Fear and loathing at Coolacrease’) rightly cautions against emotive approaches to the past, yet he steps into another ahistorical snare: believing that our present republic is a more or less inevitable consequence of the events of that period, rather … Read more