"The IRA 1956-69: Rethinking the Republic" by Matt Treacy

[Sam Lord]

Roy Johnston would be very interesting on this topic, even though he was more recently in the Green party.

If anyone knows about this Roy should, so keep an eye out for anything by him.

Well here is the whole life story. I'm making my way slowly through it. It is a fairly fascinating tale.

http://www.rjtechne.org/century130703/index.html

One funny thing caught my eye in Chapter 7. He discusses a document presented to a Special Sinn Fein Ard Fheis on June 12-13 1965. It was essentially "an 'army' document, aimed at changing the politics of the more traditional Sinn Fein." This is one of the clauses and his comment on it:

[1] (a)That the essential work of the republican movement at present is the development of political and agitational activities and the infiltration and direction of other organisations.


Note the use of the word 'infiltration': this reflects traditional elitist 'army' thinking and I remember noting the need to campaign against the concept via the educational opportunities presented by the following sections. People should be active in organisations which genuinely reflect their broader interests as citizens or specialists of one kind or another, a process basically different from 'infiltration' as then perceived by the activists.

[Phelan]

They were on lists, I understand, as having paid something. Are you saying that these lists were definitively proven to be membership lists? Is that what it said at the top of them? Any chance of a scan, so we can have a look?

I don't know anything about the attempted ban. Has anything been written about this? I would certainly not agree with any attempt to ban a book unless it breached "hate /incitement" laws.

If a statement in a book about to be published is believed to be defamatory, then a person of course is entitled to go to court to defend their reputation. It would be hoped that communists, whether with a small or large C, would avoid recourse to the courts over such an issue, if it was possible to deal with it via "comradely debate" . I'm at a loss why someone who is or was a communist would want to deny it. The mobs trying to burn Communist's premises out in Ireland are pretty thin on the ground these days.

You clearly do not know anything about the subject no more that Sam Lord.

The lists are in the CP archives. Pearse St.

Would you like me to hire you a taxi and take you from your Mam's? And order the docemuents for you?

What are you. Junior Cert?

[C. Flower]

You clearly do not know anything about the subject no more that Sam Lord.

The lists are in the CP archives. Pearse St.

Would you like me to hire you a taxi and take you from your Mam's? And order the docemuents for you?

What are you. Junior Cert?

I have read, in comments in discussion on this following Anthony Coughlan's Indymedia article, that there is no heading on this list to say what it is.
This is either true or not. It should be possible to clarify by producing the list/lists (is it one list, or more than one, are you saying?).
If you are not able to do so, I will locate it/them and take a look.

Have you looked at it/them yourself?

You would be aware that a party might have many lists of names - members, supporters, "fellow travellers," subscribers to journals etc.

If Coughlan was indeed a member, I can see no reason why he would at this stage deny it. What reason would you suggest ?

What would be more convincing would be evidence that Coughlan had consistently promoted a CP line.

I find this whole topic of great interest. The relations between the CP and republicanism were clearly quite complex.

[Sam Lord]

What would be more convincing would be evidence that Coughlan had consistently promoted a CP line.

That might be a bit sophisticated for our Trinity Phd.

In the indymedia article you referenced earlier Coughlan has this to say:

Towards the end of 1969, after the assaults on Belfast Catholic areas in August, I was contacted one day to have a meeting with Cathal Goulding and Sean Garland. I remember meeting the two of them in O’Neill’s pub in Suffolk Street, Dublin, where they invited me rather formally to join the IRA and Sinn Fein. The reason, they said, was that I would be a more effective help to the politicization process inside the movement than outside it. I declined.

In the process of researching his book Treacy interviewed Coughlan and I presume was told the same thing.

So what are the basic facts;

[1] Coughlan was asked by leading members of the IRA to join. They approached him.

[2] He declined.

So, on the basis of this information our bold historian concludes that Coughlan was on a mission to "infiltrate" the IRA on behalf of the CPI.

And he thinks his case is proved because there is some sort of evidence that Coughlan may have formally joined the CPI (or it's equivalent at the time).

I ask ya ...

[Sam Lord]

What would be more convincing would be evidence that Coughlan had consistently promoted a CP line.

The same goes for Roy Johnston. Even a quick look at the chapters on the 60s in his memoirs/biography will demonstrate that his interests lay much more in co-operativism than communism and that he has little time for what he would describe as "marxist orthodoxy". Not too big on the Soviet Union either.

If he was sent on a misson by the communists to "infiltrate" the IRA he was the most unlikely candidate that one could imagine.

[C. Flower]

The same goes for Roy Johnston. Even a quick look at the chapters on the 60s in his memoirs/biography will demonstrate that his interests lay much more in co-operativism than communism and that he has little time for what he would describe as "marxist orthodoxy". Not too big on the Soviet Union either.

If he was sent on a misson by the communists to "infiltrate" the IRA he was the most unlikely candidate that one could imagine.

I don't know about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Johnston

But Republicanism is politically diverse.
I am surprised to hear that the IRA barred CP members from joining. Has anyone written anything about this ?

[Sam Lord]

I don't know about that.

What don't you know about? It's not clear ....

[Phelan]

Coughlan and Johnston were IWP members at the same time as RJ was on IRA Army Countil and AC was leading advisor.


They know where the high court is,

Sam. You are only a gimpp. Meet Treacy and say what you have to say. *******


Seriously.

[C. Flower]

Coughlan and Johnston were IWP members at the same time as RJ was on IRA Army Countil and AC was leading advisor.
....

Seriously.

This is a discussion forum in which we endeavour through debate to delve for the closest we can find to a true picture. The focus here is on whatever it is we are discussing, not the high court or the street corner.

I can think of no reason why, in 2012, people would deny membership of, or affiliation of, the CP, decades ago, and would be interested in your views on that.

At least they don't deny having been members of the IRA.

What is incontrovertible is that Johnston and Coughlan were socialists.
I can't see any problem with that.

Is there any evidence of them attempting to steer the IRA to a CP "party line" that was contrary to Republican goals ?

[C. Flower]

What don't you know about? It's not clear ....

Roy Johnston had connections with the Party.
I don't think it is out of the question that the CP might have directed members to join the IRA. I do think it has not been proven on this thread, and I also think that in itself, it's only of importance if it can be shown that the CP was actively steering their actions.

And if the CP did direct members in the IRA, it is a matter of political standpoint whether a person thinks that is a good or a bad thing.

The other question - whether or not Treacy's book contains anti-communist witch-hunting - I'll have a clearer view on when I've read the book.

[riposte]

This is a discussion forum in which we endeavour through debate to delve for the closest we can find to a true picture. The focus here is on whatever it is we are discussing, not the high court or the street corner.

Cactus .... does that mean we are forbidden from mentioning the high court..... or the street.

As regards the discussion on this thread ..... and the reference to evidence ....and lack of it..... there is an awful lot of supposition, conjecture and second guessing going on.

I have known and worked with Tony Coughlin and Roy Johnston for 30 years. I also knew Eamonn Mac Thomais over the same period ..... and I can assure you that their versions of events could not be more diametrically opposed.

Genuine debate is one thing ..... but when a coterie of members with predefined positions try to browbeat others into submission ..... "delving for the closest we can find to a true picture"....... is a long way from the content of this thread. Read it back again Cactus.

[C. Flower]

Cactus .... does that mean we are forbidden from mentioning the high court..... or the street.

As regards the discussion on this thread ..... and the reference to evidence ....and lack of it..... there is an awful lot of supposition, conjecture and second guessing going on.

I have known and worked with Tony Coughlin and Roy Johnston for 30 years. I also knew Eamonn Mac Thomais over the same period ..... and I can assure you that their versions of events couldn't not be more diametrically opposed.

Genuine debate is one thing ..... but when a coterie of members with predefined positions try to browbeat others into submission ..... "delving for the closest we can find to a true picture"....... is a long way from the content of this thread. Read it back again Cactus.

I've already read it back. I suspect that you yourself have decided in advance that positions on this are all predefined, and could do with reading it back, as that is not the case. I'm interested in this, and even if there are no immediate conclusive answers, will follow it up. Lack of evidence ? I haven't seen the documents, or read the book, as yet, and those who do have evidence and knowledge, yourself included, have so far sat on it.

If you want genuine debate, the first step is to yourself engage in it.

[riposte]

I've already read it back. I suspect that you yourself have decided in advance that positions on this are all predefined, and could do with reading it back, as that is not the case. I'm interested in this, and even if there are no immediate conclusive answers, will follow it up. Lack of evidence ? Yes. I haven't seen the documents, or read the book, as yet, and those who do have evidence and knowledge, yourself included, have so far sat on it.

If you want genuine debate, the first step is to yourself engage in it.

Cactus .... judging by the nonsense I saw posted on the "Dissidents" thread yesterday . .... I think I'll give the slagging matches around here a miss Thank You.

[C. Flower]

Cactus .... judging by the nonsense I saw posted on the "Dissidents" thread yesterday . .... I think I'll give the slagging matches around here a miss Thank You.

Keeping one's views - and more importantly, knowledge - to oneself is always good policy on a forum

And "Isn't it awful" is even easier to play, when "It" isn't even defined, because, well......it is too awful.....

[Sam Lord]

At least they don't deny having been members of the IRA.

Coughlan was never in the IRA according to himself.