Armed Struggle : The History of the Ira

by Richard English

A timely work of major historical importance, examining the whole spectrum of events from the 1916 Easter Rising to the current and ongoing peace process, fully updated with a new afterword for the paperback edition. 'An essential book closely-reasoned, formidably intelligent and utterly compelling required reading across the political spectrum important and riveting' Roy Foster, The Times 'An outstanding new book on the IRA a calm, rational but in the end devastating deconstruction of the IRA' Henry McDonald, Observer 'Superb the first full history of the IRA and the best overall account of the organization. English writes to the highest scholarly standards Moreover, he writes with the common reader in he has crafted a fine balance of detail and analysis and his prose is clear, fresh and jargon-free sets a new standard for debate on republicanism' Peter Hart, Irish Times 'The one book I recommend for anyone trying to understand the craziness and complexity of the Northern Ireland tragedy.' Frank McCourt, author of Angela's Ashes

Genres: History, Ireland, Nonfiction, Politics, Irish Literature, European History, World History

456 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Richard English is a historian from Northern Ireland. He was born in Belfast in 1963. His father, Donald English (1930–1998) was a prominent Methodist preacher. He studied as an undergraduate at Keble College, Oxford, and subsequently at Keele University, where he was awarded a PhD in History. He was first employed by the Politics Department at Queen's University Belfast in 1990 and became a professor in 1999. He is currently teaching at the University of St Andrews.

Reviews

[Deirdre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having grown up through the early part of the war in the North of Ireland and studied this period of Irish history at an academic level, I would attest that this is one of the most accurately researched, balanced and comprehensive accounts of the Irish Republican Army which I have read to date. It should be studied by anyone with an interest in Irish politics. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

[Michael Schmidt · Rating 5 out of 5]

That a guy surnamed English came to write a history of the Irish Republican Army, its antecedants and splinters, is a lovely irony (one wonders how he prefaced his interview requests). Yet despite such an apparent setback, Richard English has produced one of the best comprehensive overviews of one of the defining conflicts of the past century, one that can only partly be read as a resistance to colonialism because of the very different approaches of the republicans and unionists to Britain, an enduring fracture that in some ways echoes that of Afrikaners and "English-speaking white South Africans" to Britain in the same era - except without the territorial division.

English notes that in Ireland in 1931, a tiny revolutionary socialist group split from the IRA: named Free Ireland (Saor Eire), it was founded in part on the Easter Rising martyr James Connolly's revolutionary syndicalist principles, but made little headway, and in 1933, the Communist Party of Ireland (CPI) was founded by adherents of Stalin. This was followed in 1934 by the radical socialist Republican Congress (RC) that survived into the late 1930s, but Irish republicanism was remained dominated by both electoralism and extra-parliamentary militarism.

I'm not a huge IRA fan, but in the 1970s there was a certain resonance between the struggles in SA and Ireland - and in Ireland, even a libertarian socialist element: a splinter off the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) in the South (not the better known Provisional IRA in the North) formed a short-lived Dublin Anarchist Group; several members wound up behind bars following a series of armed actions, and the remaining members merged with the Belfast Anarchist Collective to form an Anarchist Workers' Alliance. All fringe stuff unfortunately, as authoritarian nationalist politics have tended to dominate in both SA and Ireland/Northern Ireland today. Anyway, a libertarian socialist/anarchist approach to Irish history is here: http://www.wsm.ie/story/702

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This awesome book offers a detailed history of the IRA and giving understanding of the modern-day Provisionals. Follow the Easter Rising in 1916 and the bitter guerrilla war of 1919-21, the partitioning of Ireland in the 1920s, and the Irish Civil War of 1922-23. The IRA extended it campaigns into Northern Ireland and Britain from the 1930s through the 1960s. Read the rise of the Provisionals by the 1960s civil rights movement and the escalating violence in the streets of Northern Ireland. Also examined in this book are the Hunger Strikes during the 80s. A very informative book in my opinion.

[Kat · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed and balanced account of the history of the IRA. This was heavy and hard to get through at times. It wasn't always the most engaging read but I felt I learned a lot. I was completely unfamiliar with the very early history of the IRA and found it to be very interesting. Overall I found this to be a very thought-provoking and educational book. I also have Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA and am interested to see how it compares.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75. a fantastic achievement that forwards scholarship but disorganized and needed stronger editing to tease out the themes English suddenly introduces in the conclusion (!)

[Rebekka Steg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and perceptive books that shows both sides of the troubles in northern Ireland. The author manages to stay neutral throughout the book while telling IRA's story.

[Jules · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of interesting information, but the writing felt so repetitive that the book dragged on

[Fionnuala · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm really impressed with how straightforward this book is, both in terms of historical chronology and analysis. It's very easy to follow along, and even though I have a background in the subject I think it would remain easy to follow even if you had only a basic working knowledge. It's not an easy subject to keep streamlined, but there's nowhere in this book that it seems to lose clarity or get bogged down in unnecessary details, and there's no skipping back and forth in time or anything like that. I'd say it's as simple of a breakdown on the history that you're ever going to get, so it would be a good place for beginners to jump off from.

On that all-important topic when it comes to books like this: neutrality. For the most part, this book is impressively neutral. It presents the facts, but even when facts point to one point of view or another, there's not sense of gotcha or any sort of smug undertone of righteousness or anything like that, which is something I occasionally find in any kind of historical non-fiction where there's great political divide. It's even more impressive when you consider that the author is a Protestant; he shows a great deal of open-mindedness just from tackling the subject from the angle that he does, and while he admits he's not personally persuaded by the arguments he found, he still presents them clearly (using the words of others when he can) and doesn't derail into any kind personal argument. However, there are a few things here and there that didn't sit well with me, and for that reason it's not quite a five-star. They're not huge glaring issues, but in my opinion it ever so slightly damages the book's integrity. I am referring, of course, to the personal jab at Mairéad Farrell's love life, citing a former lover to, as far as I can tell, undermine people's view of her as a feminist. It was not necessary or appropriate; I do not know why you would cite someone's ex as a sidenote in a book that has nothing to do with her personal life. It rubbed me up the wrong way, and she is the only person targeted like this. Some hidden beef? Some kind of misogyny? I don't say such things lightly, but this stuck out like a sore thumb and made me much more critical reading it afterwards.

I don't agree with everything I read; I believe there are some parts in the conclusion especially where English is perhaps being deliberately dense, but the conclusion is where you expect an author to voice a little personal reflection and overall we were in agreement. This is a very complex subject and I doubt any two people are going to agree 100%. The fact there were a few things I disagreed on in the conclusion doesn't change the fact that this is a meticulously researched and well-presented book (aside from the aforementioned hiccup) and as a history, it's pretty solid. It's accessible to read and manages to avoid being dry. I'd say it's a good a starting place as any, and obviously the more you go on to learn, the more you can analyse this and see how it holds up. For people just looking for an overview that goes a deeper than the information that you can find online, this would be a good place to find it.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an essential book for anyone interested in the Northern Irish Troubles. It should not be considered as a full history of the Troubles, but is a must-read.

English meticulously charts the origins and history of the IRA. He neither condemns nor glorifies the violence, and in fact avoids much discussion of the violence, per se. Of course, he cannot discuss the IRA without discussing paramilitary action, and he frequently does, but his focus tends to be on socio-political trends within the IRA, and between the IRA and Sinn Fein.

This is the reason that it's only part of a good reading list on the Troubles. It doesn't address the loyalist paramilitaries, understandably, and rarely discussed the violence in detail without a connection to political and strategic shifts within the IRA. But it is a fair, accurate book that reads very easily, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Irish nationalism in the 20th century.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not bad but the random bashing of socialism was really weird/unacademic.

[Mary Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Densely packed with information - one read is not enough.

[Mitch · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't have the necessary background in modern Irish history to fully understand what was being discussed in this book.

[Milan Vrekic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent retelling of the slippery slope that took IRA from resistance movement to straight up terrorism.

[René Toet · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Armed Strugle: The History of The IRA" is an immense, extensively researched, piece of work regarding the Irish Revolution, the Troubles and the rise of the IRA. The book tells the interesting story of the long conflict between the English and Irish during and after Ireland's and Northern Ireland's (quasi-colonial) subjugation to England.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the nationalist versus unionist struggle. Next to this, the book also gives insight into the reasons behind - and the consequences of - organized armed revolt or terrorism: all from a standpoint of nationalistic, religious and (institutionalised) discrimination. Very contemporary topics indeed.

[Jerry Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I grew up in the 70s and 80s, the news was replete, almost every night it seemed, with another IRA (and latterly loyalist) atrocity or murder. The terms "shot dead" and "gunman" were heard very frequently along with reports of bombs and general mayhem. When one traveled into London, there was always the thought, as you walked past parked cars, that one of them might be an IRA bomb.

I also remember the hunger strikes, especially Bobby Sands, and the intransigence (which I actually admired at the time I'm somewhat ashamed to say) of the Thatcher government. However at the time, I didn't really bother to learn the nuances of The Troubles. It was all too easy to fall for the British narrative that the IRA were simply terrorists who were trying to bomb their way to a united Ireland. I was unaware of the history (as is true of most Brits who don't bother to learn the evils of empire) and how schisms in the history of Republicanism led to the formation of the murderous Provisional IRA in the late 60s.

So it was more than time to take a closer look at this period of recent history and this book more than fits the bill in terms of filling in some detail, beginning way back before the Troubles, to set the scene. Indeed, one can't really understand where the Provos came from, without understanding that and RE does a good job of explaining, and trying to remain neutral. However, I have to say that overall, he seemed to lean towards support for the IRA I thought, whilst all the time couching his narrative in terms of, the IRA felt they had to to this and it is understandable (with regards to some atrocity) and then writing: "of course the violence was horrendous" then again the sentiment that: "The other side was bad too". I admire the attempt to be even handed. Maybe it's my history and background that leads me to think he sometimes comes close to justifying the IRA campaign and indulging in tu quote fallacies of whataboutism.

Now, I need to state that overall I think the book does an excellent job and RE acknowledges that by taking the IRA's statements seriously, there is a risk he is seen as giving those sentiments undue weight. I also believe that the arc of history will likely bend towards a united Ireland. There is no doubt that we Brits have a ton to answer for BUT, as RE points out here, this is not simply an "Irish vs British" conflict. It is essentially a triangle: Republicans/Brits/Loyalists. In other words, there is clearly a majority in the 6 countries who want to remain part of the UK. To simply make Northern Ireland part of the Republic will rip from them, what they want. This is likely to cause significant counter violence as we saw with the UFF and the UVF who carried out more violence in the latter years of the troubles than even the IRA.

This is something I knew, but hadn't thought closely enough about. It is well considered here in the conclusion, although I think a little more of this in the main narrative might have helped. However, I greatly admire the way the strands are pulled together in the conclusions chapter, which is substantial. Overlaying the Republican vs Loyalist narrative is, of course, sectarianism. As an atheist I find all religion to be unproven and mostly, absurd. There is a joke that pertains to being stopped by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and asked whether you are Catholic or Protestant. When telling they you are an atheist they ask: Catholic or Protestant atheist? It is essentially the same religion but the sectarianism that has caused so much bloodshed over the centuries is clear.

RE addresses this and is skeptical, rightly in my view, of IRA claims that it wasn't a sectarian organization. The loyalists clearly were and revenge attacks on both sides had a clearly sectarian slant. It was clearly a complicated situation and remains so. All of this is acknowledged in this book and I am certainly much better informed. As I say, I did think I detected a slight Republican sympathy which is fine - I tend to that myself. However there seems to be slightly more criticism aimed at the SAS than the IRA for example which makes me think that.

I admire the approach, having said that. It is easy, as I did, to view the IRA as a terrorist organization pure and simple and not understand their goals, which are legitimate. However, As RE writes, could they have achieved what they ultimately have today without all the killing and mayhem? I think they could have. Reading other works about the IRA, particularly "Say Nothing" by Patrick Keefe illustrate that they were a murderous, vile organization. Taking mothers from their children, murdering them in private somewhere and burying the body and not telling the grieving family where, is the act of a barbarous, deliberately cruel organization and that needs to be recognized. It can't be waived away with claims that the UFF or other loyalists, or the RUC, or the SAS were just as bad. Those atrocious acts (48% of those killed in the Troubles were killed by the IRA) need to be utterly condemned despite the cause being reasonable.

I am very conflicted about political violence. I do understand that sometimes a situation is so heinous, and injustice so egregious, that people take up arms. However, the IRA didn't achieve its aims (Brits out), at least not yet. The human cost - fathers killed, little kids killed, innocent civilians blown up by car bombs is huge and remains. As much as I understand the cause, I can't condone the appalling violence perpetrated on, largely civilians, in its name. I think that this book, in its valiant attempt to be even handed, could have condemned this violence more vociferously.

[Jared Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well researched book. It has a lot of good information in it and is very well written I wish there where half stars so I could give it a 4.5 Out of 5. At times it could be a little dry. And although the chapters and sections are laid out very well, it jumps around inside the chapters making it sometimes hard to get the chronology at first look.

[Patrick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yes, you will learn some history. However, this work is completely biased and unbalanced. He certainly lives up to his surname. In short, take the "history" with a grain of salt and disregard his analyses altogether. His treatment of the Croke Park massacre in the opening pages is your first red flag.

[Peter Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Great Read

This book will become a reference books for all who are interested in Irish Independence in modern history. Well balanced.

[Grant Burgman · Rating 5 out of 5]

As thorough a telling as any history I’ve read. Every side is given their shake and the amount of research here is IMMENSE.

While I’m more sympathetic to the IRA than English is (there are heroes here, namely Theo Wolfe Tone, Michael Collins, James Connolly, Bobby Sands), there is no arguing with his representation of IRA violence as continually ill conceived and unnecessary. It becomes abundantly clear as the book goes on that the IRA were fighting ostensibly against the British, but for an ideal that would "save" people who didn’t and don’t want it. The sectarian Irish state brought on by British colonization is a tragedy, yes. But it’s a tragedy that has aged enough to simply become reality. One that the IRA waited far too long to accept instead of war against.

There is a tremendous quote from former Provisional IRA man Danny Morrison that sums this up: "Don’t be talking about Northern Ireland being artificial; every country was made artificially, all nations are artificial. It’s been seventy years: Israel has a right to exist — we’re living longer than them [i.e. Northern Ireland has existed longer than Israel, and should likewise have a right to exist]. Okay, you didn’t get civil rights but we’re sorry, we want to have a new start.’"

The quip about civil rights is eh but the sentiment about NI is right. It’s a state like any other. One that, as English makes clear, is much happier to exist as is than as the IRA conceives it. While the early IRAs ambitions were admirable, it becomes increasingly clear that their war was based more in their own blind passion and dogmatism than reality (though the British are villainous, right to the end, no doubt).

It’s sad to see a re-emergence of even inklings of this violence. It’s important to remember that the British are the true villains here. They created the divide. But, it’s equally important to remember that generations of people have now lived in, grown in, identified with these nations full of their own personalities and customs and that simply is the reality of things.

Had a great conversation with a Pakistani friend about the lingering impact of colonialism (Yeah, heavy stuff) and she said "at a certain point the people have no choice but to fight for their autonomy; it’s human nature." And I agree. It’s human nature for Ireland AND Northern Ireland. A unified Ireland is one in a long list of casualties of the British empire, and it is a shame. But that’s the past, and the people of both Irelands right now have a right to determine their own lives, their own autonomy. It’s only human nature, it’s only right.

[Leonard Janke · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very glad that I read this book as it solved some mysteries for me: why the IRA was engaged in their fight, why for so long and how peace finally managed to emerge.

I grew up in Canada in the 1970s and 80s and did not pay much attention to The Troubles. Sometimes, however, it was unavoidable in the news. The Hunger Strikes were the first instance and the Corporals Killing another. When the band U2 became a sensation it also brought attention to The Troubles. Canadian news, as might be unsurprising given Canada's Commonwealth status, had a very pro-British bias. Naturally so did the BBC when I was able to watch it. This was not a bias I recognized at the time. Indeed I considered CTV and the BBC much more objective than US news when it came to coverage of Israel and the Palestinians. I guess when it's your own country or a close ally, however, it is harder to be objective.

The book itself is not meant to be completely comprehensive. It has a very specific goal: First and foremost its goal is to fairly present the IRA's motivation for engaging in their fight. There is enough history, especially of key events, to accomplish this. At the same time it does not get bogged down in unnecessarily recounting every instance of tit-for-tat during these years. There is a strong focus on analysis of events. This makes up about 90% of the book and I believe English does an excellent job of presenting the IRA's beliefs in an impartial manner. It is no longer such a mystery to me as to why they engaged in the fight they did. The remaining 10% of the book is English's analysis of the IRA's claims and his assessment if armed struggle was really necessary to accomplish their goals. He does not believe there needed to be as much violence for so long as there was and makes a case that that is not just 20/20 hindsight talking. By first presenting the IRA's case completely and fairly before stating his own opinions you are allowed to make your own assessment and then compare to his.

Key parts of the book in demystifying the IRA's fight for me was a thorough analysis of how the 1960's Irish Civil Rights Movement morphed into 1970's violence. It is interesting to think about this in the context of the present day and whether the ingredients are there in the US for a similar outcome. I do not believe that they are although I believe some who are attempting to cause trouble now are using parts of the the transformation from peace to violence in North Ireland as a template.

English also does a thorough analysis of the prison wars and how he believes they were instrumental in showing the IRA that they could make progress beyond the use of violence. He also discusses prison culture thoroughly and its impact on the IRA. The IRA's preferred prison reading material is quite interesting.

English's discussion of the peace process is also excellent. His basic argument is that both sides realized that they had reached a stalemate and would have to settle for less than what they wanted. He makes important points about how the IRA had misjudged Britain's motivation for being in North Ireland and how, when they realized this, it contributed to their desire for a peaceful resolution. English also describes how the peace deal was "sold" to nationalists as only a stop on the road of bigger progress toward full independence.

The book is excellent overall. I only have some minor criticisms. I do wish there had been more statistics to show disparities between Protestants and Catholics in the North. This could help show whether or not they were making progress during The Troubles and especially after the Good Friday Agreement. I would also have liked to see at least one chapter on pre-1916 history. Finally, I found it nothing short of miraculous that McGuinness and Paisley ended up governing together and genuinely considering themselves friends given their earlier positions. Even a quick paragraph or two on that would be quite inspiring to would be present day peacemakers

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This very thorough examination of the Irish Republican Army probably shouldn't be one's first introduction into the story of the IRA. (For that, I would recommend the audiobook "Ireland in the 19902: The Path to Peace." (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...). "Armed Struggle" is mostly a history of "The Troubles" (which started in 1969), but the author does a good job explaining the history that led up to it. "The Troubles" is a hard subject to tackle. Should one try to be objective when discussing objectively horrible people? Another challenge is avoiding the monotony of the tit-for-tat carnage. The author's approach is to provide the details of the conflict with the assumption that the reader is somewhat familiar with the events that happened. By doing this, the author gives himself room to ask and answer many insightful questions about the decisions that were made by each party. The result is that the reader learns why peace was so elusive. The author does a remarkably good job of explaining the current state of affairs with an afterward for the latest edition.

I listened to the audiobook edition, which led to a rather humorous moment toward the end of the 20 hour book. According to a Tantor Audio profile, the narrator, Roger Clark was born in America, but moved to Ireland as a youth. He narrated the book with an Irish accent. However, the author, Richard English, is, as his name suggests, is English. In a few spots, the author inserts himself with such phrases as "when I interviewed so-and-so, he told me..." But in the last few minutes of the 20-hour audiobook, the author discusses that he was born in Belfast, but grew up in England with an English accent. What did the narrator think when he read this? "Aw fuck, I got accent wrong. No way I'm starting from the beginning and reading it again."

[Kiel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deep study of a devastating political clash, this book nuances the complicated and often violent history of Irish Republican Army. I’ve been on the hunt for context of independence moments because of my current locale. All I can say about what I learned from this book is I’m glad I’m not in the middle of a situation like the one described. There are some similarities, but many differences. The religious and ethnic closeness of the enemies in this struggle make it dark in a manner similar to other civil wars through history. The often harrowing hunger strikes during imprisonment are powerful, but the turn toward Marxist ideals, the partnerships with Libya and Nazis at different times, making any enemies of England their friend, is hard to stomach. The book is very well written, and very even handed. I remember the dissolution of the IRA but didn’t realize the impact 9/11 and the Columbian drug war had on hurting the IRA’s quest for global legitimacy, placing them on dangerous footing because of their penchant for unmitigated violent acts and loose political partnerships, however otherwise noble their causes may have been. National identity, religion, and self rule are powerful and fragile things. Imperial colonialism and totalitarianism are still realities being sorted out in our complexed and ever complicating times. 492 pages or 20 hours of war, consequence, nationalism, and ever changing winds and whims of history.

[Wallyeast · Rating 4 out of 5]

From my point of view, this was an even-handed, impartial look at the history of the Irish Republican Army up through 2002ish. It does a great job of explaining the point of the IRA without glorifying the violence. It also does a fair job of explaining the other side, too, both the unionists and the British.

It includes in-depth discussions of what people read and believed, how leaders perceived situations, and how those two interacted.

One thing I found interesting was that in the 1960s, Catholics in the North looked to the Civil Rights movement in the US for inspiration, especially, the nonviolent tactics. Those tactics just weren't as effective in this instance.

There was a discussion of the hunger strikes, the peace process in the 1990s (and why the IRA switched from violence to political efforts), and a good look at the history of the IRA before The Troubles.

The book is extremely well-researched with footnotes galore. This was far from personal recollection, so don't read it for that. It's an academic study of the subject.

[Brian Olinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fact-Based, academic read

Mr. English’s book provides an excellent historical analysis of the history of Ireland. The challenge of such a work is the polarization of such a topic depending on one’s political proclivities. Also, sometimes these types of books become a wishy-washy “both sides-ism” that ends up providing no real insight.

Rather, Mr. English dives head first into all aspects and what the reader comes away with is a view of a complex, messy past in which political progress was made at enormous social cost. A particular area the book does well is framing the macro-level, conceptual political topics with personal individual tragedy (murders of civilians, horrific injuries, massive suffering) to remind us that numbers and figures are people’s lives.

What this book is not is a deep dive into the people or necessarily the key markers of history. Also, the author is not driven to write a spell-binding narrative. I would recommend only for someone with a real interest in Irish history.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Patiently and exquisitely argued history and analysis of the provisional IRA movement. I personally was hoping for more granular campaign details of the 1970s and 1980s—and the book delivers in its history of the prisoners’ movements and protests—but i was very willing to settle for a detailed history of known movements and actions followed by English’s extensive and thoughtful concluding analysis, which felt like it considered every position fairly and in good faith while also not shying away from damning conclusions (such as that the last 23 years of the troubles were in many ways fought for no military gain to the IRA, yet had they surrendered and opened themselves to compromise post-1974, their opponents most likely would not have, making peace nonetheless impossible. A complex and insightful book I’m glad to have spent the time with.

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard English begins his history of the IRA with an account of the 1916 Easter Rising when 1,600 Irish nationalists, members of the Irish Volunteers led by the Irish Republican Brotherhood seized the Dublin General Post Office and a number of other official buildings. They called on all Irish patriots to throw off the bonds of British control of their homeland. It was a typically grand gesture, doomed from the start and would become almost a paradigm for future actions against the British.

The Easter Rising was well planned tactically until a shipment of arms was discovered and captured by the Royal Navy. An attempt to countermand the orders for the Rising was only partly successful and caused confusion, especially outside Dublin.so that planned uprisings in Cork and Limerick to support the Dublin action didn’t happen.

It was a disaster strategically a complete failure at the time, but became the most important part of Republican mythology. The IRB leadership assumed they would be supported by mass action of Irish people but there was little empathy for the rebels—indeed the captured rebels were pelted with stones by those watching them being marched to prison while their British Army captors were given cups of tea. While overestimating the readiness of the Irish to throw off the yoke of monarchy, the rebels fatally underestimated the response of the British who were faced with an armed insurrection in the homeland while sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths in the meat grinder of trench warfare in France and Belgium.

On the British side it was also typical of how badly the Irish problem would continue to be handled. British military intelligence missed the preparations completely and was taken by surprise; the Metropolitan Police Special Branch (initially the Special Irish Branch), founded specifically to combat the Irish Republican Brotherhood, gather intelligence and forestall terrorist acts, were equally unaware of the plans for the rebellion.

The majority of people, even in Ireland, felt that the rebels had been disloyal and treacherous and had stabbed England in the back during its time of greatest need. However this changed in a few days with the execution of 15 of the captured fighters. Some were leaders of the Rising, others were not but all of them were taken from their cells and stood in front of a firing squad in the Stonebreakers’ Yard at Kilmainham Gaol. James Connolly, mortally injured in the fighting and a few days from death, couldn’t stand so he was tied to a chair and shot. Instead of sending the intended message to potential rebels that the British Empire would crush them without pity, the executions created a new generation of martyrs for Ireland and became a rallying point for the Republican cause.

So there is no question that prior to 1921 (the creation of the Irish Free State) or 1949 (the founding of the Republic of Ireland) that the Republicans were engaged in an anti-colonial struggle—Ireland was a colony ruled by an appointed Lord Lieutenant and controlled from London. But the main themes of “Armed Struggle” involve the post-independence activities of the Provisional IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein. Even with the independence of the 26 counties of the Republic the leadership of the PIRA continued their campaign of bombing, ambush and assassination in order to “unite” Ireland—i.e. make the six counties of Northern Ireland part of the Republic. English shows how unlikely—actually impossible—this would be. The Protestant majority of Northern Ireland was happy with being subjects of the queen and and acknowledged part of Great Britain. The idea of a united Ireland was repugnant to them, feeling they would be adrift in a Catholic sea with reduced power and no chance of redress for abuses at the hands of the majority. The myth that the Provisionals promulgated (and may have believed) was that once the British withdrew from the north, the population there—religiously, economically and culturally different from the rest of the island—would want to be ruled by Dublin.

The title, “Armed Struggle” comments on how the PIRA and their supporters, particularly in the United States, tried to equate their situation with that of the Algerian War of Independence from France or the South African battle against the apartheid regime. They tried cover themselves with the mantle of freedom fighters but the Irish question had been settled and Ireland would (and will) remain divided between the Republican South and the Unionist North who are more English than kippers for breakfast, more English than the Queen. Even the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland favor continued union with England.

“Armed Struggle” is exhaustively researched and well written. It reads as a popular history but English’s decades long immersion in the sources is apparent—his bibliography may list everything ever published in English regarding the IRA. The terrific bibliography points out the one outrageous flaw in this book as published as a Kindle e-book, a flaw that makes this edition of “Armed Struggle” worth less than the list price. There are no chapters, and no table of contents. It is all but impossible to find anything---the “Go to” function allows the reader to go to the following pages: Cover, Front Matter, Preface, Chapter One, Back Cover. The entire book, including bibliography, index, pictures, etc. is stuffed into one digital blob. It is more like a review copy or advance reader’s copy than a completed text from a reputable publisher. The publisher, Oxford University Press, not unfamiliar with the necessities of digital formatting, did a slapdash and amateurish job with this electronic book. If I could give it one star for presentation and four for content I would.

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book but it was just too dry for me. It is supremely researched and very detailed so much so that I found myself hastily skipping through long lists of names, most of which only appear once or twice in the book. The acronyms are clearly explained at the beginning of the book, but there are so many (that are also very similar) that I had to keep going back to look up what they meant and what side they represented. Finally I just had to make a cheat sheet of acronyms and important people and use that as a bookmark!

No doubt the minute detail will appeal to some readers, and for those people I recommend this book because it is comprehensive. For me it was too much like a textbook or a droning history lecture.

[Caleb Sommerville · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic and exhaustive look at The Troubles. I had tried another MORE in-depth book before this, and...oof. English's succinct, clear, and measured history is easy to grok which makes the decades of bloodshed all the more heartbreaking.
His thesis, seen in the fanTAStic conclusion section (on page 338): "This book has been written in the belief that, whether one supports the IRA or not, it is important to understand what they have done, why and with what consequences-and to do so in terms of serious, detailed explanation rather than simples stereotype."
Boom. If that isn't a rock-solid starting point for a historical book dealing with the "political spaghetti" that are The Troubles, then I don't know what is.

[Tom Brennan · Rating 3 out of 5]

English's work, while helpful in spots, is missing entire contextual gaps. There are whole aspects of the conflict he deals with little to none at all i.e. the Protestant forces, the financial side of running the IRA, etc. Essentially, this is limited to a blow by blow account of a long running guerilla war. Nor is the writing necessarily scintillating. Nor is there sufficient moral clarity on the egregiousness of randomly blowing up civilians, for example.

This is the best book I've read on the IRA. Because it is the only book I've read on the IRA. But it certainly cannot be the best book written on the IRA. If it is, someone needs to write a better.

[Zzz Z · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clearly well-researched, but the actual writing was a slog to get through. Every sentence was clearly packed to the brim with information, which makes it ponderous to read. Many contained multiple asides, making it much more difficult to follow.

In addition, the structure of the book is so broad as to be almost useless from a narrative prospective. The book assumes you're already pretty well versed in the history of the IRA, and spends most of the space illustrating small anecdotes which would be much more illuminating and interesting with a more solid background.